BX 9543 
.V3 R4 
Copy 1 



REMARKS 

* > 

ON 

LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE, 

HUMAN CREEDS, 

AND 

THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS, 

SUGGESTED BY THE FACTS IN A RECENT CASE, 
BY 

A LAYMAN OF THE REFORMED DUTCH CHURCH, 

" Who knows not that Truth is strong, next to the Almighty ? 
Give her hut room, and do not bind her : Let her and falsehood grap- 
ple : who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open 
encounter ?" 



Milton, 




PRTJJTEP BY J. & J. HARPER, CIIPF-ST. 



ms 



REMARKS, Ac- 



section i. 

There may be persecution even inlhis free country,— The exciting 
cause of persecution, and the scope of its power.— -Design and 
object of the publication. — Board of Superintendants lohat,^ 
Short relation of L. B. Van Dyck's case. 

In this free country, we felicitate ourselves on our happy 
exemption from the evils of tyranny in civil or ecclesiastical 
concerns. We have, in no respect, felt a prouder pre-emi- 
nence, than in the enjoyment of religious freedom. By the 
provisions of the constitution of this country, we are secured 
against the passage of laws to create any religious establish- 
ment, or to prohibit to our people the free exercise of religion* 
The arm of the civil authority therefore may not put forth its 
power to elevate one denomination, or to depress another. 
We know nothing by experience, of persecution for conscience* 
sake, waged by the civil magistrate, in these United States ; 
and in as much as ecclesiastical power is not directly exerted 
against property, liberty, or life, we are ignorant of the enforce- 
ment of religious opinions, by the infliction of pecuniary fines, 
confiscation of property, imprisonment, banishment, or death 
Although the evils of persecution are thus greatly mitigated, the 
evil itself is not removed. Men form religious opinions in this 
country, as well as in countries less free ; and whenever mul- 
titudes agree in adopting the same sentiments, they are very 
prone to become too positive that themselves are right, and 
that those who differ from them are wrong. This is bigotry 
The progress to intolerance is very easy and natural, And 



4 



wherever intolerance of the religious opinions of others has 
once taken possession of the human heart, persecution will 
surely follow, if there be the occasion and the power of its 
exercise. 

The power of persecution, even in this country, is very for- 
midable. Denying its exercise to the civil magistrate, is only 
lopping off one of the many heads of the hydra. The indivi- 
dual who, in this comparatively happy land, falls under the 
displeasure of his own sect, may not be made to suffer the 
miseries of persecution in its more palpable forms of outward 
coercion and punishment ; but he may find arrayed against 
him, the whole force of what there is of ecclesiastical power ; 
of public opinion under a wrong and malicious direction ; of 
evil surmisings, backbitings, slanders, hatred, contempt, in- 
sult, the opprobrium of heresy, suspension from church mem- 
bership, and final excommunication. If he be a minister of the 
gospel, or have chosen that calling as the business of his life ? 
he may, by the force of persecution, even in this free and 
happy land, be driven from his chosen or actual employment, 
and in his infirmities or old age be compelled to throw himself 
upon the charity of the public for the supply of himself and 
family with their daily bread. 

The design of this pamphlet is to lay before the public a 
history of the persecution waged against Leonard B. Van Dyck; 
a young man who, having received his theological education 
in the Seminary of the Reformed Dutch Church, and desiring 
to be licensed in that church to preach the gospel, was re- 
fused by the Board of Superintendants ; and was subsequently 
followed up, with unrelenting perseverance, by the whole ec- 
clesiastical strength of the church, until he has finally escaped 
beyond the boundary of her jurisdiction and the reach of her 
power. He was persecuted by his own denomination, not for 
any delinquency in moral or religious conduct, but for what 
was deemed a crime equally heinous, his doubts on certain 
disputed, abstruse points of theology, which can never have 
the remotest influence on his affections or conduct towards 
G od or man. 

The object of this publication is not so much to vindicate 



5 

the young man, (for he has satisfactorily vindicated himself in 
his pamphlet,) as to make his history the occasion of illus- 
trating that liberty of conscience which is the birth right of 
every man — of exposing the wickedness of exalting human 
standards of faith to that place which belongs only to the word 
of God, and of proving, that a student of divinity does not 
alienate his liberty of conscience, nor submit himself to the 
authority of human creeds, by his entrance into a theological 
school. 

The chief actors in this history are a body of men, unknown 
in the former days of our church, and to this day unknown 
in any other church. The body is numerous, composed of 
ministers exclusively, (laymen not being permitted a place 
among them,) diffused through the whole extent of the church, 
and embodying the talent ar.d influence of the ministry, of 
sufficient power, in ordinary cases, to command the vote of 
even the General Synod ; and, at all events, sufficient to pro- 
tect them from being arraigned before the tribunal of the public, 
by any clergyman of our denomination, who cannot be sup- 
posed to fet 1 indifferent to the weight of influence possessed 
by the Board, nor to be desirous of provoking the resentment 
of a body so powerful. As a layman of the church, I am 
exempt from much of the danger to which a clergyman 
would be exposed, in attempting to call in question, the cor- 
rectness of deeds performed by men so high in authority, as 
the Board of Superintendants. 

The students in the Theological School cannot be licensed 
in the Dutch Church to preach the Gospel, without a previous 
examination by the professors of the Institution, in the pre- 
sence of the Board of Superintv ndants. The board has not 
the power to license ; this right belonging exclusively to classis 
and Synod. But the classis or Synod may not even examine 
a student, with a view to licensure, without the previous consent 
of the Board, who hold an annual meeting in the Theological 
Hall at New Brunswick, for the purpose, among others, of 
attending to the examination of the students, conducted by 
the professors of the Seminary. At th^ir annual meeting, in 
July 1827, Mr. Leonard B, Van Dyck having, with three 



g 



other students, completed his term of study in the School, was 
examined, and rejected by the Board. He subsequently 
applied to the Presbytery of Columbia, and was licensed by 
that body. Enraged at this, the Board called an extra meet- 
ing of its own members, at the city of New- York, in Novem* 
ber, of the same year, and in accordance with suggestions 
in the Magazine of the Reformed Dutch Church, they, at that 
meeting, passed resolutions highly censuring the presbytery 
for licensing Mr. Van Dyck, charging them with having 
violated the articles of correspondence between the two 
churches, and requiring them to revoke the license ; while they 
denounce him as guilty of irregular and unchristian conduct ; 
and issue a printed circular letter to the Dutch Churches, 
warning them against receiving into their pulpits, this danger- 
ous Presbyterian candidate. The Presbytery of Columbia, 
not rendering obedience to the command of the Board, an 
extra meeting of the General Synod of the Reformed Dutch 
Church was called, and was held at the city of Albany, in the 
month of April, 1828. At that meeting, the Synod refer the 
matter to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, 
to decide whether the Presbytery of Columbia, in licensing 
Mr. Van Dyck, had not violated any of the Articles of Corres- 
pondence between the two churches. 

The General Assembly convened at Philadelphia, in the 
month of May, and decided that the Presbytery of Columbia 
had not violated any of the articles of correspondence. This 
decision not having been communicated to the General Synod 
of the Reformed Dutch church, no further proceedings have 
taken place in that body. 

The documents which give an official history of this case, 
will be found in the Appendix, to which the reader is referred. 
A more particular and detailed relation of facts is purposed to 
be given in the following pages, accompanied with such infer- 
ences as, in my view, are not only authorized, but obvious 
and unavoidable. 



SECTION II. 



Mr. Van Dyck's connections and character, — Entrance into the 
seminary. — Dr. Milledoler becomes professor of didactic 
theology.— His dealings with Mr. Van Dyck previous to the 
meeting of the board.-— Persecution no new thing.— Examples 
from history. 

Leonard B. Van Dyck was born of parents who are both 
members of the Reformed Dutch church, and whose respective 
ancestors, for time immemorial, had been attached to the same 
church. His connections are respectable, and have evinced 
their love for the ehurch of their fathers by generous contri- 
butions to the funds of the theological school, and by their 
active support of the institutions of the gospel in the places 
where they severally reside. He himself became a member 
of the Dutch church at the early age of fourteen ; and thence- 
forward exhibited a life influenced by the principles of the 
gospel. His habits were correct, and his whole demeanour 
unexceptionable, throughout his academical and collegiate 
course. At the age of eighteen, he entered the theological 
school, under circumstances deemed very favourable to the 
acquisition of that knowledge which is necessary to qualify a 
man for the ministry of the gospel. Possessing respectable 
talents, an inquiring, independent, but not obstinate mind, 
and calculated to please the generality of teachers, his friends 
contemplated with pleasure his future progress and prospects. 
When he entered the seminary, Dr. Livingston was the teacher 
of didactic theology. Mr. Van Dyck enjoyed the benefit of 
his fatherly instructions for only a short period, when the 
school and the church were called to mourn his death. This 
bereavement made room for Doctor Milledoler, under whose 



8 



tuition, as professor of didactic theology, Mr. Van Dyck spent 
the residue of his term. Until Doctor Milledoler entered the 
Institution, there had not been the least difficulty or unpleasant 
occurrence between Mr. Van Dyck and his teachers. 

When his term of study had expired, and the examination 
of fhe students at the annual meeting of the Board of Super- 
intendants was at hand, Dr. Milledoler requested him with 
the other students to disclose to him their views of the doc- 
trines they had been taught. A small pamphlet under the 
signature of Q., lately published, evidently by one of the mem- 
bers of the Board, and apparently a friend and confidant of 
Dr. Milledoler, intimates that the Doctor's request was 
prompted by his suspicion of the unsoundness of Mr. Van 
Dyck's creed. Be this as it may, the request was made ; and 
it was complied with on the part of Mr. Van Dyck, by a writ- 
ten declaration of his sentiments. [See Appendix.] While 
in that communication, he avows his belief that both as to ex- 
istence and mediatorship, Jesus Christ is eternal, he expresses 
his doubt whether the term Son of God, when applied to him 5 
denotes a natural or official relation ; and in regard to the 
Holy Spirit, he expresses a doubt whether his procession de- 
notes his natural or official relation ; so that he could not say 
that he believed from rational conviction, that Christ is the 
natural Son of God, or that the procession of the Holy Spirit 
is either eternal or natural. He declares his belief in the doc- 
trines of imputation and substitution ; and that he adopts the 
distinction between natural and moral inability, explaining 
what he understands by that distinction. He gives some 
views in relation to the atonement, for which the reader is 
requested to refer to the Appendix, in which he appears to 
hesitate between the vie ws of those who maintain its general, 
and those who advocate its limited character. 

Dr Milledoler, having examined this communication, pro- 
nounced it to contain material errors. Mr. Van Dyck, on 
hearing this, and finding by conversation with Dr. Milledoler 
and the other professors, that his paper was misunderstood, 
proposed to Dr. Milledoler that he would take back that 
paper and write another. To this the Doctor not only con- 
sented, but urged Mr. Van Dyck to write a second paper ; at 



9 



,ne same time delivering him the first. The second paper 
was written and delivered to Dr. Milledoler. [See Appendix, 
No. 2.] In this paper he declares his belief in the divinity of 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that between these persons 
there is a real distinction, but what the nature of that distinc- 
tion is, he does not know. He repeats in substance the same 
sentiments as in the first paper on the subject of imputation, 
substitution, and moral inability, and that, in regard to the 
atonement, he hesitates between the views of Hopkinsian and 
Calvinistic divines. 

When Mr. Van Dyck delivered this second paper to Dr, 
Milledoler, he was surprised, as every reader will be, to 
hear him demand the redelivery to him of the first paper. A 
request so strange startled the student, as well it might, and 
prompted him to inquire why he made it. The answer was, 
that he wanted the first paper to justify his conduct. What 
the conduct of the Professor had been in relation (o that 
paper ; whether he had already been making representations 
of this case to some of the choice friends of orthodoxy, in or 
out of New-Brunswick ; or whether he had already trans= 
mitted copies of the paper to individual members of the Board s 
and adjured their aid in disposing of the heretic, and therefore 
wanted the paper itself to bear him out in his representations ; 
or how else he could need the paper to justify his conduct, we 
must even submit to be ignorant, or indulge in conjecture only, 
unless the Doctor shall see fit to make a voluntary disclosure. 
The mystery is not at all lessened by the fact that, when this 
request was made to deliver the first paper to Dr. Milledoler, 
he had a copy of it in his possession. It seems as though 
he had copied it as soon as he received it. The paper must 
have been deemed of vast importance ; much more so than 
the student dreamed, when in the ingenuousness of his soul, 
he had written and delivered it to his teacher, whom he had 
every reason to presume would act the part of a friend, and 
not that of an inquisitor. As has just been mentioned, at the 
time he demanded the first paper he had a copy of it. He 
had copied it before he delivered it to Mr. Van Dyck ; for we 
find Mr. Van Dyck refusing to deliver him the paper, and yet 
the Doctor sends a copy of the same paper to the Board of 



JO 



Superintendants. For what possible purpose could the Doctor 
have taken a copy while he had the original in his hands, and 
could not know that Mr. Van Dyck would ask it back ? It 
is most strange ; and our wonder will be yet increased when 
we read his communication of this matter to the Board, 

That body convened at the Theological Hall, on the 1 1th July 
1827, and, as soon as they were assembled, received Professor 
Milledoler's report, which was in the words following : 

" Mr. Leonard B. Van Dyck, of the Senior class, presented 
;£ to me a paper on the 29th of June, purporting to contain 
"some doctrines on which his views differ from the ac- 
knowledged standards and ministers of our church. Ap- 
iC prehending that this document would be submitted to the 
" Board of Superintendants, Mr. Van Dyck called upon me. 
" on the 5th instant, to request the original, that he might ex- 
£ff amine and remodify it. I gave it to him under the full im- 
c: pression of a loan, and that it certainly would be restored to 
" me. Mr. Van Dyck has, however, since declined to return 
" it, and has presented, in its place, a substitute, under date of 
" July 7th. Having understood that this young gentleman 
" contemplates leaving New Brunswick, without submitting to 
" examination, and being desirous to avoid all misapprehen- 
" sion, and to put the Board in possession of at least some of 
".the facts which have transpired in his case, I have deemed 
si it my duty to present both documents to the Board. 

" PHILIP MILLEDOLER. 

" New Brunswick, July Wth, 1S27." 

He does not say that Mr. Van Dyck promised to return the 
first paper, but that he delivered it to him under the impres- 
sion of a loan. This impression seems not very consistent 
with the assertion that Mr. Van D3 ck apprehended the docu- 
ment would be submitted to the Board, and that therefore he 
called on the Doctor to request the original, that he might ex- 
amine and remodify it. If Mr. Van Dyck feared the inspec- 
tion of that paper by the Board, and wished therefore to re- 
modify it, he must have expected that the modified, and not 
the original document, would have been laid before them ; 



u 



and how he could imagine that the Professor would want the 
original it is difficult to conjecture. Nothing but the Professor's 
private views could have suggested " the full impression of a 
loan." 

That the student had the right to withdraw a paper which 
he found to be misunderstood, one would suppose could hardlj 
be questioned. There was nothing besides his gratuitous pro- 
mise that rendered it obligatory on him even to write another 
paper. Had he been so disposed, he might have demanded the 
paper without promising to write another, and so have left the 
Professor to detect his suspected unsoundness on his public ex- 
amination. There is no authority given expressly, or by im- 
plication, either in the constitution of the church, or the reso- 
lutions of Synod, to exercise this inquisitorial power over the 
students in the Theological School; and if there are, it is 
high time that there should be a revision, and such obnoxious 
powers abolished. It was most unkind, it was cruel, thus to 
treat a young man who had put himself under his care, un- 
conscious of guile in himself, and not suspecting it in others. 

Admitting that the Professor did believe in the first instance 
that Mr. Van Dyck intended only to borrow, and afterwards 
return the paper, and therefore thought he might with pro- 
priety communicate it to the Board, it was impossible that he 
should continue to think so, after he understood explicitly from 
Mr. Van Dyck that he had absolutely withdrawn it. 

But the Professor of Didactic Theology, in his Report, has 
mentioned the reason for submitting the first paper to the 
Board ; namely, that he had understood the young man con= 
templated leaving New Brunswick without submitting to an 
examination ; and so deemed it. his duty to submit both docu- 
ments to the Board. Admitting that he really believed the 
student intended to escape from his grasp, and that of the 
Board, that could not authorize him to violate the plain rules 
of propriety, by communicating to the Board 3 as the confes- 
sion of the student, what he had found to be misconstrued, and 
had therefore withdrawn, and substituted another. Had the 
Professor deemed himself a civil magistrate, and dealing with 
a felon, he could not have been more tenacious of document? 



12 



Here was his mistake : he did, in the exuberance or his 
orthodoxy, believe he was dealing with a criminal, whom with 
all the force of his arguments he could not bring, on all 
points, into the same belief with himself. This was a crime 
in the eyes of the Professor of Theology, and he seems to 
have feared, that the young heretic would make his escape, 
And what could have been the great injury, if he had effected 
what it was apprehended he meditated 1 He could not be 
licensed by any ecclesiastical body in the Dutch Church, 
without an examination before the Board ; but he might apply 
to some association of congregationalists, or to some Presby- 
tery, and possibly be licensed by them. Was it intended, by 
laying the matter before so powerful a body as the Board of 
Superintendants, and inducing them to advertise him as an 
heretical fugitive, to render it extremely difficult, if not impos- 
sible for him to obtain license any where] Or if he should 
yet apply for examination to the Board, must he come before 
them, under the imputation from his teacher, of having medi- 
tated a flight from justice 1 

Had Mr. Van Dyck left the seminary without applying for 
examination, surely neither the Professor, nor the Board, had 
any further business with him. Yet some, who pretend to be 
wise, assert that the student, after his entrance into the Theo- 
logical School, remains under its jurisdiction for life ; as much 
so, as a nun is subject to the convent after assuming the black 
veil. If this Popish doctrine is to be enforced, the student on 
entering the school, ought, at least, to have as ample notice of 
the consequences of his entrance, as the nun has of her taking 
the veil ; or a student entering under the idea of remaining a 
freeman, will be sorely disappointed when he finds himself a 
prisoner or slave. 

The Doctor must have supposed either that the two papers, 
although in substance the same, would be better proof of 
guilt before the Board, than a single one, by analogy to the 
rule requiring two witnesses to substantiate a fact ; or he must 
have imagined he saw a material difference between them. 
On comparing the two together, an ordinary reader would pro- 
nounce them substantially the same, with the exception that 



in the first he expresses certain views of the atonement whicij) 
under the apprehension of their being misunderstood, he 
expressed in the second paper in more general terms. And 
here is probably the secret ot the case. These views of the 
atonement may have been very offensive to the doctor, not at 
all coming up to what he had taught in the Theological HalL 
He had perhaps taught that the standards of the church 
required of her sons the belief, that Christ died in no sense, 
for the non-elect. Air. Van Dyck, in the first paper, may 
have been understood to avow a contrary sentiment, though 
not expressly asserting his belief in the doctrine of unlimited 
atonement. Indeed, the student, when he wrote the papers 
in question, seems to have apprehended that on the subject of 
the atonement, he differed from the standards of the church ; 
but afterwards discovered that he agreed with them. 

The object of the Professor in presenting the case of Mr. 
Van Dyck to the Board, was to apprize them of his non-con- 
formity to the doctrines taught in the Dutch Church. It was 
very easy of proof, that the student was not prepared to absent 
to the two points of eternal generation and eternal procession, 
as both his papers expressly declare the fact. The Professor 
did not choose to risk the chance of the student's rejection by 
the Board, on those points alone. He knew that among some 
of the ministers of our church, and among a goodly number 
of the members of the Board, there was a peculiar sensitive- 
ness on the subject of the atonement, insomuch that they 
could not endure, with any degree of patience, a fellow- 
minister's calling in question their construction of our stand- 
ards. He might weii imagine how they would receive such 
views, as the first paper contained, from a stripling not yet 
twenty-one years of age, in defence of the whole force of a 
three years' tuition in the very school of orthodoxy. The 
Board might possibly overlook his doubts as to the eternal 
generation and procession, either on the ground that these were 
unimportant or unessential ; or on the ground that the student's 
doubts might yet terminate in conformity to the standards. A few- 
years of study with the advancing maturity of his mind, might 
enable him to perceive evidence of those doctrines which he 



did not now perceive ; and in the mean time he mignt be siiem 
on them in his preaching, as almost every other minister of the 
gospel is. Bat the doctor knew that the views of Mr. Van 
Dyck, on the atonement, expressed in his first paper, would 
never be forgiven him, by some of the members of that Board 
—and therefore it was that he was so intent on submitting that 
paper ; namely, to avail himself of the inveterate prejudices 
of individual members, and thereby to insure the young man's 
rejection. 

These remarks may seem to the reader, if he is unac- 
quainted with ecclesiastical history, perhaps not conclusively 
warranted by the facts of the case. It may appear to him 
strange that men educated to the ministry of the gospel, in- 
trusted with the care of precious souls, continually conversant 
with holy things, presumed to be almost half of their time em- 
ployed in prayer and reading the pure precepts of God's word ? 
should have room left in their minds for harbouring anger, re- 
sentment, envy, or any evil passions — that any other sentiment 
than forbearance and love should actuate them in their converse 
with their fellow mortals. Alas ! that stubborn facts should 
contradict this plausible theory : but it is even so. Ministers 
of the gospel are after all, mere men ; of like passions with 
others. They are not peculiarly exempt frum inordinate at- 
tachments to their own religious opinions. Indeed, it requires 
much reading of the sacred scriptures, and much of the grace 
of God, to preserve them from it. Teachers of theology are 
in a most special manner exposed to this temptation, from the 
nature of their employment. By the frequent repetition of 
their opinions, they become more and more convinced of the 
correctness of them, even to that degree as to become impa- 
tient of any contradiction. This contradiction is peculiarly 
irritating when it comes from his student, whom the Professor 
of course thinks so far, far beneath him. But this spirit is not 
confined to the schools, nor to the ministers. Any man who 
is pertinaciously attached to his religious sentiments, so as to be 
incapable to hear them discussed without having his equani- 
mity disturbed, is a bigot. He must be, in the nature of things., 
intolerant of the opinions of others, which conflict with hi? 



15 

own. And wherever there is this intolerant spirit, it needs 
but the occasion and the power, to produce actual perse- 
cution. 

Turn we then, for a few moments, to history, in proof of 
my position. The spirit of the gospel is that of peace, for- 
bearance, anr? love. Oh, how was this spirit, inculcated by 
our Saviour, and the sacred writers. How much was it 
insisted on by the apostle John, that we love one another. 
This spirit of love prevailed very much among the primitive 
Christians, insomuch that the world took notice of them on 
this very account, and recommended them as patterns of bene- 
ficence and kindness. But in the second century, the spirit 
of intolerance began to prevail in the church of Christ. A 
great dispute arose as to the day on which the festival of 
Easter should be celebrated ; and many of the minority were 
actually excommunicated for their non-conformity to the faith 
of the dominant party. This was, I believe, the commence- 
ment of persecution in the Christian church ; and from that 
time to the establishment of popery, the church enjoyed but 
little rest. Every difference of opinion among the eccle- 
siastics, was swelled into a matter of great importance ; and 
the majority were pretty sure to use all their power to enforce 
their own opinions on the consciences of others ; not only to 
censure, excommunication, and deposition— but when the 
civil power could be made to co-operate with ecclesiastical 
intolerance, to imprisonment, banishment, and death. What 
horrors have been committed by the papal power, in lording 
it over the consciences of men S What rivers of blood have 
been shed, you well know. Bi i ihe persecutions in protestant 
times, and in protestant countries and churches, are not so well 
known. It is useful for us sometimes to look at that which 
is very painful for the eye to behold ; to recall to memory 
facts which prove to us the corruption of human nature, and 
how that nature acts out itself, when men lose the temper of 
the gospel, Even John Calvin— -the great, and I will call 
him the good Calvin, notwithstanding this one stain on his 
character, was accessary to the death of Servetus, for heresy. 
Calvin doubtless believed he was doing God service. He may 



16 



have thought that this was the way in which Christians are to 
contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. 
He believed that a man was punishable for heresy, even by- 
taking away his life. He was countenanced in this principle 
not only by the practices of the popish church, but by almost 
all the fathers and bishops of the church, since the com- 
mencement of the fourth century, who esteemed heresy as 
one of the worst of impieties, and believed it the duty of the 
civil magistrates to employ their power for the advancement 
of the orthodox faith. The execution of Servetus was ap- 
proved by Melancthon, and the pastors of the church at Basil. 
At Zurich, a pecuniary penalty was enacted by a public 
law, against such as should suffer themselves to be re-bap- 
tized, or should withhold baptism from their children. The 
law enacted further, that those who openly opposed that 
order, should be yet more severely treated. A man by the 
name of Felix was actually drowned at Zurich upon the sen- 
tence pronounced by Zuinglius, " Qui iterum mergit mer- 
gatur'' — " He that immerses again, let him be drowned." 
Were it not for the instruction to be derived from history — yea, 
from the history of the crimes perpetrated by even the great 
and the good, we would fain wish that the mantle of oblivion 
could be thrown over those transactions in Switzerland, of 
which the above are only a sample — and much more would 
we wish to blot from the page of history what has been done 
in the land of our own Dutch ancestors. Nor do I now 
select the deeds of our own forefathers, because they were 
more heinous than the deeds committed in other countries, 
under the impulse of religious intolerance ; but the selection is 
made, the more clearly to show the propensity of the human 
mind to persecution for conscience' sake; by showing the 
principle to have been in full exercise among those whom we 
have been in the habit of esteeming the wisest and best of the 
human species ; namely, the successors of the reformers in 
Holland itself The church in that country had reduced to 
the form of a confession of faith their views of the sacrament 
of baptism, and expressed their detestation of the errors of the 
Anabaptists, who re-baptized such as had received that ordi- 



17 



Bance in their infancy, denying the right of baptism to infants, 
(See our own constitution, page 37, art. 34.) The arm of 
the Si cular power having been secured in aid of the dominant 
church, the Anabaptists were prohibited from preaching, by 
the imposition of fines, and banishment from the country. All 
persons were forbidden from letting their houses and grounds 
to them, under penalty of a large fine, or confinement to 
bread and water for fourteen dajs. It they offended the third 
time, they were to be banished. Whoever was discovered to 
re-baptise any person, should forfeit twenty dollars, and upon 
a second conviction, to be put to bread and water, and then 
banished. Unbaptised children were made incapable of in- 
heriting ; and if any one married out of the Reformed church 5 
he was declared incapable of inheriting any estate, and the 
children were declared bastards, 

Deplorable as the above facts are, history records that still 
deeper guilt has been contracted in the land of our forefathers 2 
by means of persecution for religious opinions, than fines 3 
banishment, and disinherison. The controversy with the 
Arminians was more furious still than that with the Anabap- 
tists. The Arminian tenets were condemned by a synod 
very famous in the history of the church, (the synod of Dort,) 
and in the canons which we find embodied in the standard of 
our own church. We do not find the whole of the proceed- 
ings of that synod in the volume containing the constitution of 
the Reformed Dutch church in America. The synod of Dort 
at the same session in which they condemn the Arminians or 
Remonstrants, and profess to fix the articles of their own faith, 
exhort the provincial synods to take particular care that they 
admit none into the ministry who shall refuse to subscribe or 
promise to preach the doctrine asserted in these synodical 
decrees. And they most humbly and earnestly beseech their 
gracious God, that the civil rulers might suffer and ordain 
this wholesome doctrine, which the synod hath faithfully ex- 
pressed to be maintained alone, and in its purity. The states 
of Holland acceded to the request of this ecclesiastical body, 
so full of what they believed to be holy zeal. For as soon as 

f] ie svnod was concluded, the aged Advocate Barnevelt 

p 



18 



beheaded for having adhered to the Remonstrants ; Giotiur 
was condemned to perpetual imprisonment ; and, because 
the offensive Arminian ministers would not promise wholly 
and always to abstain from the exercise of their ministerial 
functions, the states general of Holland passed resolutions for 
the banishing of them ; on pain, if they did not submit, of 
being treated as disturbers of the public peace. A few days 
respite, to put their affairs in order, and provide for their 
families in their banishment, was unmercifully denied them, 
and they were hurried away next morning by four o'clock, 
as if they had been enemies to the country, and not for a 
moment to be endured in it. 

A small specimen has thus been given of the effects of that 
inordinate religious zeal which succeeded the reformation in 
the countries of Switzerland and Holland. Other countries 
partook of the same spirit, and the dominant parties perse- 
cuted their opponents. By whom were these persecution? 
set on foot ; by the laymen or the clergy ? I answer, unhesi- 
tatingly, and without the fear of contradiction, by the clergy 
Recur we again to Holland. The history of the preparations 
for the synod of Dort, and the oppressions and bloodshed fol- 
lowing it, are distinctly to be traced to the intolerance of the 
clergy, and to their influence in getting the civil magistrate 
into their views. " The prince of Orange and states of Hol- 

land were not for confining their protection to any particular 
" set of principles or opinions, but for granting an universal 
" indulgence in all matters of religion,— aiming at peace and 
" mutual forbearance, — and to open the church as wide as 
" possible for all Christians of unblameable lives : whereas 
4 ' the clergy, being biassed by their passions and inclinations. 
■ J for those masters in whose writings they had been instructed. 
" endeavoured, with all their might, to establish and con- 

ciliate authority into their respective opinions ; aiming only 
" at decisions and definitions, and shutting up the church by 
" limitations on many doubtful and disputable articles. So 
• that the disturbances which were raised, and the severities 
st which were used upon the account of religion, proceeded 
>; from the bigotry of the clergy." Beza, one of the reformer?. 



id 



siadl written a treatise in Latin, to prove the lawfulness ot m 
flicting punishment on heretics. This treatise was afterwards, 
but preceding the meeting of the synod of Dort, translated 
from the Latin into the low Dutch language, by Bogerman, 
with a dedication and recommendation of it to the magistrates. 
The same Bogerman was afterwards chosen president of the 
synod of Dort, and, without all doubt, most cordially united 
in the prayer of the synod, so strange in our ears, that the 
gracious God would move the hearts of the states of Holland 
to tolerate no other doctrine than that declared by the synod, 
Not only in Holland, but generally throughout the world, the 
clergy have generally been the promoters of persecution. 
The laity have other objects of pursuit to occupy their minds, 
besides the concerns of the church and of religion, which 
almost exclusively take up the thoughts of the clergy. Lay- 
men do not generally acquire that confidence in their religious 
opinions, as to be willing to persecute others for not embracing 
the same. Let me be indulged in another remark. In pro- 
testant countries, the animosities of the clergy, and the conse- 
. quent persecutions, have been mosily directed against their 
clerical brethren, while the laity have escaped the sufferings, 
and by the very means have been exempted from one of the 
strongest inducements to persecute others. Let me not be 
understood as saying, that we have no laymen in our church 
of an intolerant spirit ; nor that clergymen must necessarily 
be persecutors in principle. Very far from the truth are both 
these propositions. All I maintain is, that from the nature of 
the occupations of both, our clergy are more in danger of im- 
bibing this hateful principle than our laymen. 

The office of a minister of the gospel is highly valued by 
our people, and justly so. Without a ministry, religion would 
soon be banished from the world ; and we have reason to bless 
the Lord, that we have in our connection so many in the holy 
office, that evince by their works that they have a commis- 
sion from their Master. But that evils exist, no one will 
deny. To expose these evils without the prospect of benefit- 
ting the church, would be wanton indeed. I do hope to 
benefit the church, by holding up to view, matters not gene,= 



20 



rally known, or not duly considered; and let me now be 
permitted to crave the reader's patience till he has heard me 
to the end. 

Now then, to return to our suhject, the presentation of Mr. 
Van Dyck, by Dr. Milledoler, to the Board of Superintend- 
ants. The evidence has been adduced, from which the writer 
has drawn the inference, that Dr. Milledoler was determined 
to prevent that young man from being recommended by the 
Board for a Professoral Certificate, or if he should not present 
himself to the Board, that he should be branded as a heretic 
and a fugitive from justice : and I have also endeavoured to 
show that clergymen, and those of good characters too, are 
capable of doing worse things than these ; and that they have 
actually done them. These pains have been taken in order 
that the Doctor, or his apologists, may not content themselves 
with merely throwing the weight of his character and office 
into the scale against the facts arid reasons adduced to prove 
the charge exhibited against him. 



SECTION III. 

Proceedings before the Board, with Remarks* 

st The bigot theologian — in minute 
Distinctions skilled, and doctrines unreduced 

To practice in Christian love how cold ! 

His vain conceits were orthodox alont ! 

— he made trifles seem 

The marrow of salvation ; to a word, 
A name, a sect — gave value infinite j 
With mortal heresy denouncing all 
Who in his arguments could see no force." 

Course of Time. 

We are now prepared to enter upon the case of Mr. Van 
Dvck, as taken up by the Board of Superintendants in July 
1827. No sooner had they assembled than Dr. Milledoler's 
Report is laid before them : the matter was referred to a 
special committee of three. That committee had a conference 
with Dr. Milledoler, and in that conference he could not deny, 
that the deportment of the young man had been throughout 
his theological course, respectful and exemplary. They state 
in their report that having called Mr. Van Dyck before them, 
he had conducted himself with decorum, with candour, and 
affection:— that although upon the explanation of the standards 
of our church, given by the committee on the subject of his 
doubts, he was in some measure relieved, so far as to be able 
to retract some expressions in his written statements, yet he 
retained his doubts on the eternal generation of the Son, and 
of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit ; and was not suffi- 
ciently explicit on the atonement : that he wished to be 
admitted to his examination with his Class, and submit to the 
investigation and decision of the Board of Superintendants. 
The committee farther say, they are aware of the caution and 
discretion which should be exercised in the reception of can- 
didates for the ministry, especially when the developement of 
facts suggests them. Yet upon due consideration of the modest 



M 



md affectionate conduct of their ^oung brother, the committee 
say they could see no weighty reasons why he should not be 
admitted to his examination, and why the whole subject should 
not be left to the discretion of the Board. This report was 
adopted, and the different classes were then examined. This 
examination continued from Wednesday till Friday, and it 
does not appear that during the course of it, any thing was 
elicited from Mr Van Dyek, that gave a different complexion 
to his case from that presented by the committee. 

Now, by adopting the report of the committee, it seems 
very obvious that the Board then saw nothing in l is case, as 
presented in his papers and by the committee, that ought to 
prevent them from recommending him to receive a Professoral 
Certificate. If they had seen it, it was very strange, as well 
as very unkind, to amuse the young man with a three days 
examination, and then to bring him forward to the exhibition 
of a public exercise in the church. This course, it is evident, 
would be calculated only to wound his feelings the deeper, and 
render his rejection more notorious. The Board certainly 
then knew from his papers, and from his declarations to the 
committee, that he did not assent to the doctrines of the eternal 
generation and procession. Will any one say the Board 
might hope that he would yet yield those doubts ? What ! if 
the Professor during three years' tui'ion could not convince 
him that the Bible declared these doctrines, do they suppose 
that he would become convinced by the examination in the 
presence of the Board ? - It would be uncharitable to suppose 
that the Board hoped to coerce him into acquiescence, by 
increasing his anxiety during the progress of the examination, 
and as the annunciation of his doom was drawing nearer. I 
do not believe that such calculations were made by them. 
The committee, it appears to me, were prepared in the feel- 
ings of their hearts to have stated in their report — " We cannot 
find any authority in the Word of God, to reject such a young 
man as this, although he cannot assent to our entire standards." 
The student thus came before the Board, from the hands of 
the committee, in a more favourable light than from the hands 
of Dr, Milledoler. — And the Board, when they proceeded to 



33 

act on the report of the committee, are iiot found prepared to 
reject the student for his doubts on the two doctrines specified. 
That some of them were prepared to sacrifice him upon the 
spot, can scarcely be doubted, when we look at their subse- 
quent conduct at the same meeting, and their conduct at the 
meeting in New- York. But the leaven had not diffused itself 
sufficiently through the mass, on the first day of the session— 
The examination would last some days, and might be spun out, 
by the Professor of Didactic Theology, to any extent of time, 
until all things were ready ; and that examination he might so 
conduct, as to forward the point in view. Meanwhile, he 
could have opportunities of frequent intercourse with the, indi- 
vidual members »f the Board, and by the various means at 
hand, such an esprU du corps might be excited, and increased, 
and the courage of the feartul so strengthened, and all things 
so managed, as to make that tolerably easy, which now would 
be attended with much difficulty. As has been before men- 
tioned, the examination lasted until Friday morning. The 
room was then cleared of every living soul, except the mem- 
bers of the Board. After the lapse of some time spent in secret 
session, the Board put their intentions in regard to the unfor~ 
tunate student, into the shape of a resolution. Reader, look 
at it : — " Resolved, that Mr. Van Dyck be called before this 
Board, and asked whether he has any remarks or explanations 
to make, on the papers which contain his views and difficulties 
on certain points of doctrines, as maintained by the Reformed 
Dutch Church, and whether he is prepared to subscribe, ex 
animo, the standards of the church." 

How different the tone of this resolution from the Report 
of the Committee adopted by the Board on Wednesday 
What produced this difference 1 Did any thing transpire dur- 
ing the examination, to show that Mr. Van Dyck differed more 
widely from the doctrines maintained by the Reformed Dutch 
Church, than his papers purported ? No ; this is not pre- 
tended: for he is to be called on, not to make remarks or ex- 
planations of any thing he said in the examination, but to be 
asked whether he had any remarks or explanations to make 
on the papers. 



M 



The'resolution of the Board was intended to finish Mr, Van 
Dyck ; they knew it must have that effect. They unloc k the 
door of the gloomy Hall, and the young man on entering 3 
meets the looks of some dozen or twenty reverend clergy men 3 
on each of whose countenances his doom might with ease be 
read. The question was stated to him in due form — Have 
you any remarks or explanations to make on the papers you 
handeo Dr. Miiledoler, containing your views and difficulties 
on 1 certain points of doctrine, as maintained by the Reformed 
Dutch Church ? A pretty long question, and embracing 
several ideas ; well calculated to embarrass a young man in such 
company and under such circumstances. He, however, an- 
swered as the Board well knew he would answer, unless his 
mind had become disposed to yield to the power of coercion 5 
or out of complaisance to the Board. He answered, that the 
last paper, handed by him to Dr. Miiledoler, fully expressed 
his views, — that is, he still doubted the doctrines of eternal 
generation and procession ; — he still adhered to the distinction 
between natural and moral inability ; and his mind was not 
more settled on the atonement, that it was when he wrote that 
paper. — Well then, sir, are you prepared ex animo to sub- 
scribe the standards of the church 1 Understand us, sir. — We 
do not ask this question in a general sense, but we ask you 
whether you are prepared to subscribe to the I Oth and 1 1th 
articles of the Contession ot Faith, and the 13th Lord's day 
of the Heidlebergh catechism ? Here the student began to 
muster coura^ to inquire whether the Board had the right to 
put these questions. This presumption was instantly put 
down by the remark, that hau it not been a proper question, it 
would not have been asked him. Of course, it would have 
been open rebellion to have demurred any longer.— Well then, 
sir, the 10th article of the Confession of Faith asserts that 
Christ is not only the Son of God from eternity, but begotten 
from eternity. Now you state in your paper you are not con- 
vinced of this doctrine ; and you have just told us that that 
Daper speaks your mind. Now are you prepared to subscribe 
the article, which asserts that which you say you are not con- 
vinced to be true ? I cannot, says the student,— Here we 



>nould have supposed the Board might have stopped. The\ 
had evidence in all conscience of a non-conformity in the 
mind of the student to the standards, provided doubt be equi- 
valent to denial. But the Board had to proceed further ; the 
order of the day was not finished. — Mr. Van Dyck, the 11th 
article of the Confession of Faith, declares that the Holy 
Spirit procee is from the Father and the Son from eternity. 
Now, in your papers you declare you cannot, from rational 
conviction, say that you do believe this. Are you now prepared 
to subscribe another paper declaring that you do believe this ? 
Of course I am not prepared to say I do not believe, and that 
I do believe, in the same breath.— Again ; the 13th Lord's day 
of the Heidelbergh catechism, declares Christ to be the eter- 
nal and natural Son of God. You say in your paper you are 
undecided, whether Christ is the Son of God from nature or 
from office. Now sir, are you prepared to subscribe to this 
13th Lord's day, and so have your subscription stand to two 
opposite propositions 1 No. The torture is not yet com- 
pleted. There are more questions yet. As far as we have 
gone, (the Board may have thought,) we have only convicted 
him of unwillingness to subscribe to the eternal generation 
and procession, — -doctrines, concerning which, as ministers, we 
say very little, and which our people therefore may not think 
very important. And if we should reject the promising young 
man for doubting only unimportant doctrines, we may ourselves 
be arraigned for our conduct, before the bar of public opi- 
nion. We must therefore convict him of non-conformity to 
the doctrine of the atonement, as maintained by the church. 
Now, Mr. Van Dyck, we will read to you the 8th article of the 
canons, under the second head of doctrine, (see Constitution, 
page 157.) This article, sir, we understand as asserting the 
doctrine of limited atonement. After hearing it read, Mr. 
Van Dyck (no doubt much to the surprise and confusion of 
some,) answered that he was prepared to subscribe that article. 
But, asks a learned doctor, are you not mistaken as to your 
being able to subscribe that article ? Did you attend closely 
when it was read, and weigh well the terms in which it is ex* 
pressed 1 Let me read it to you, and emphasize it. This 



being done, the wicked student persisted in saying the article 
met his views. Then in answer to some other questions, he 
repeats the sentiment that man's inability is moral onl}, but 
that he applied the corruption of human nature to the under- 
standing and affections, as well as to the will — Here the 
Board doubtless thought it most prudent to stop : why so ? — 
Were they afraid that in case they examined further, he would 
exhibit too much of orthodoxy to admit of his rejection with 
safety 1 They had been careful to read to him every article 
In relation to the eternal generation and procession ; for they 
knew they could do that without any danger of his subscribing 
them. Why did they not do the same in relation to the atone- 
ment 1 Why did they not read to him the answer to thf 37th 
question of the Heidelberg catechism, which asserts that Christ 
sustained the wrath of God, against the sins of all mankind? 
Was not this so favourite an article with the Board as that in the 
canons? or did they believe that the student would be willing to 
subcribe that, while they hoped and believed that he would not 
subscribe the one they did not read to him 1 Strange, that 
they should ask him to subscribe the article which they knew 
would least favour his views, and that they should omit to pre- 
sent him the one which they knew would most favour his 
views. The wonder vanishes if my belief be well founded 5 
namely, that although the Board place the rejection of Mr. 
Van Dyck, on the ground of his refusal to subscribe the entire 
standards ; yet that the reason which moved them to reject 
him, was not what the public were lefl to believe it was ; but 
that his views of the atonement were the true moving cause. 
His sentiments in regard to natural or moral inability may 
also have had an influence on the motives of some, as that 
opinion thwarts some favourite notions respecting man's total 
helplessness or deadness : besides, the circumstance of the 
words moral inability not being found in our standards. For, 
to be purely orthodox, it is needful not only to conform to 
every word in our standards, but also not to go one letter 
beyond. If you go beyond, by using one word not there 
contained, you are said to violate 61 the form of sound 
word*" 



The Board then not willing to let the deed rest on the ground 
of Mr. Van Dyck's rejection of the abstruse and unimportant 
articles of eternal generation and procession, and having, 
doubtless, their misgivings that he might not reject the articles 
in relation to the atonement, did yet reserve another ground 
on which they might justify what they were resolved to do, 
Let the reader look back at the resolution of the Board en- 
tered prior to the special examination of Mr. Van Dyck, and 
he will find that they intended to call on him, not only to de- 
clare whether he was prepared to subscribe the standards, but 
he was to be asked whether he had any explanation to make 
respecting his views on certain points of doctrine, as maintained 
by the Reformed Dutch Church. Now this is something quite 
distinguished from the standards. These standards, it seems, 
do not always speak a plain language. Some construe 
them one way, and some another. There is a certain por- 
tion of the ministry who assume to be at the apex of ortho- 
doxy, that in such cases give tone to a certain construction, 
Ms they say, so are those certain points of doctrine said to be 
maintained by the Reformed Dutch Church ; and if these 
sentiments can be repeated a few times by certain Doctors in 
divinity, or such as may be on the point of receiving that dis- 
tinction, or inserted with approbation in " our Magazine," thev 
become at once the doctrines of the Reformed Dutch Church, 
In these cases, the rule does not apply that you may not add 
one word to the standards. For to every rule there are ex- 
ceptions, and these men have, by common consent, the same 
right to fabricate an additional " Form of Sound Words,'' as 
the Synod of D>>rt had. And these men have the further 
privilege of fixing the interpretation of the standards ; so that 
their reading oi the articles becomes the genuine reading of 
the Church. At all events, what is so authenticated may well 
be said to be doctrines maintained by the Reformed Dutch 
Church. But the Board fearing that Mr. Van Dyck would 
be rather disposed to adopt his own construction of the stand- 
ards, as they had seen he was disposed to do in regard to the 
Scriptures, did not intend to let the matter of the atonement 
rest on his refusal to subscribe ; but meant to reserve the op 



portunity of alleging his unsoundness on that doctrine, as 
maintained by the Reformed Dutch Church. And accord- 
ingly, we find in the concluding resolutions of the Board, 
that they artfully mix up his difficulties on several important 
doctrines, with his refusal to subscribe the entire standards. 

The Board then having finished the special interrogation ot 
the theological student, again ordered the massy doors of the 
Hall to be closed, so that they might deliberate on the matter, 
without being under the inspection of the eye of man. 

It is to me, strong proof of undue veneration for our stand- 
ards, which are but the work of men ; and oi the want of a 
comparative estimation of the Holy Scriptures, that from ihe 
beginning of this business with Professor Milledoler, to the 
completion of it with the Board, neither he nor they seem 
to have thought of putting the matter on the ground of the 
Holy Scriptures. While the student puts his faith on the tes- 
timony of those Scriptures, and cannot consent to say yes. 
when he cannot find evidence of the truth of the proposition 
from the Bible, they constantly press upon him the standard? 
of the Church. Dr. Milledoler represents to the Board the 
student's differences from the standards and ministers of the- 
Church. The Board, m their first resolution after the report of 
the Committee, speak of his views and difficulties on certain 
points of doctrine, as maintained by the Rejormed Dutch Church. 
In their interrogations they confine themselves exclusively to 
the Confessions ot Faith, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons. 
And now, in their concluding resolution, declaring their de- 
cision on the case of Mr. Van Dyck, they state as follows: 
et Whereas Mr. L. B. Van Dyck labours on several important 
doctrines, so that he cannot subsciibe the standards of the 
Church, Therefore resolved, that he cannot be recommended 
by this Board to the professors for their certificate." Still 
nothing in regard to his scriptural quahficatiuns. Now, if 
the Scriptures are silent on the subject of the qualifications 
of ministers of the gospel, the Professor of didactic theology, 
and the members of the Board, could not have any reference 
to them as a standard of their decision, and then from neces- 
sity they were confined to what man may have spoken on th^ 



29 



subject. But it the Bible contains sufficient on this subjee 
to lead men of understanding to a sound determination from 
the Scriptures, then the Board have not obeyed God, in de- 
ciding this case on the authority of human standards. That 
they have decided the case exclusively on human standards, 
will hereafter be shown to the satisfaction of every intelligent 
and unprejudiced mind. That none of the doctrines on which 
Mr. Van Dyck laboured are of essential importance is most 
conclusively shown in that young man's pamphlet, and no an- 
swer has been given, nor will any be given to it. He did not 
refuse to subscribe any article except as to the eternal genera- 
tion and eternal procession. That these are important doc- 
trines, will not be advocated in print by any minister or lay- 
man of this Church. JNone will be found willing to stake his 
reputation for sound judgment and scriptural knowledge, on 
such a proposition. Dr. Miller, in his controversy with Pro- 
fessor Stuart, does not consider the doctrine of eternal gene- 
ration so important, but that he could give him his hand as a 
brother notwithstanding his d nial of the doctrine. And as to 
the eternal procession, no one, it is presumed, ever dreamed of 
its being important, since the nicety of scholastic theology has 
been on its wane in the Church. 

But admitting for a moment that a denial of these doctrines 
may be viewed as important, is the doubting of these either 
such a crime, or such a misfortune, as to disqualify a student 
from receiving a protessorial certificate lor examination before 
classis — Is doubting equivalent to a denial ? It is so in the 
Roman church , — why ? Because it at once evinces rebellion 
against the authority of the Pope, or decrees of council. 
What, say they, can induce a man to express a doubt, unless 
he is inclined to cast off the authority of the church ] It is 
the creed of the church, and if he were not disposed to ques- 
tion its supremacy and infallibility, he would subscribe, 
although his judgment was not otherwise convinced. The 
same reasoning is adopted among ourselves. Our good men 
would address the student, and ask -him, Do you deny the doc- 
trines ? He answers : No ; I cannot say it is not so ! Why ; 
+ hen really, it is replied. You might I think, subscribe to the 



30 



articles, ana not pretend to be wiser than our forefathers. 
But, says the student, it will not do for me to subscribe an) human 
proposition, unless I am positively convinced of its truth — for 
me to say it is so, merely because I do not know that it is 
not so, does not comport with my ideas of propriety. I 
cannot say it is so, until I am convinced of it. But cannot 
you believe this on the faith of all the Synods, ministers; 
churches, and good men, that have existed since the reforma- 
tion ? The student answers : The doctrine is either found in 
the Bible, or it is not. If it is not there, 1 ought not to assent 
to it, although all other men believe it ; and if it is there, I must 
see it before 1 can subscribe to it. To toe correctness of my 
belief of the Bible, I am answerable to God, and 1 may not 
trifle on this subject, so as to pin my faith on another man's 
sleeve, or profess to believe that God's word speaks thus and 
thus, merely because the church or any number of men 
declare that it does so speak. 

We proceed now to the lemaining resolutions of the Board 
of Superintendants, in declaring their final decision in the case 
of L. B. Van Dvck. It is strange how, in the transactions 
of men, the attempt to put on appearances contrary to the 
reality, defeats its own end. The Board would fain have it 
believed that their rejection of this young man was not a 
matter ot choice, but a matter of necessity, arising from 
his misfortune in not conforming to the standards, and there- 
fore, after declaring that, " whereas he has given a high de- 
gree of satisfaction to the Board by the praiseworthy can- 
dour manifested on the topics on which his mind was not 
settled, and the attention paid to his studies, and that it is re- 
garded as exceedingly desirable that the way should be opened 
for his admission into the ministry of our Church," they resolve 
" that he be advised to continue in the Institution, and pay a 
particular attention to the subjects alluded to ;" and also, that 
a special meeting of th Board might be called, when his 
mind should become settled on those subjects. That the dif- 
ferent members of the Board hai all of them the same views 
in agreeing to this resolution does not appear to me probable : 
it is impossible, however, to discriminate between them, as 
^heir debates are not recorded in their proceedings- and the 



31 



aid not permit the presence of witnesses. Doubtless some oi 
the Board viewed the whole of the proceedings as they ought 
to be viewed — unjust to the student, impolitic as it respected 
the Seminary, and disgraceful to the Church. The majority 
on the question of his rejection, may have been composed of 
different individuals from those who carried the subsequent 
resolutions. Be that as it may, some fear is betrayed in the 
latter resolutions, either of the imputation of injustice done 
to the student, or of danger to the interests of the theological 
school, from the establishment of a precedent like this, viz. 
the rejection of a student for doubting on unimportant articles 
in the Confession of Faith. The student must, therefore, be 
advised to remain in the seminary, and pay particular attention 
to the points on which he doubted. Could the Board be se- 
rious in professing to believe that the student would remain 
there % What was there to induce him to remain ? Was it 
supposed that a young man of his intelligence could fail to see 
the spirit with which the proceedings against him had been 
carried on? Could he have failed to discern that from the 
time Dr. Milledoler demanded his first paper, which he had 
withdrawn, to the time he went into the hands of the commit- 
tee, appointed by the Board, and from the time that committee 
delivered him up, until his case was finally decided by ihe 
Board, he had been treated as a criminal on trial for some se- 
rious misdemeanour ; and the advice now with so much ap- 
parent kindness proffered to him, was nothing more or less 
than an attempt to incarcerate him in the Theological Hall, and 
there have his intellects and his faith hammered into due 
shape on the anvil of the professor of didactic theology ; or 
of being humbled into an acquiescence with the dogmas of the 
school ; and of being made use of as a beacon to warn all 
subsequent students to make the submission of their judgment 
to the teachings of the school in due time, on pain of like im- 
prisonment and disgrace. The Board, at their second meet- 
ing in November, declare that their resolutions at the first 
meeting must be understood as instructing Mr. Van Dyck to 
remain in the seminary until his mind should be finally settled, 
and made correct ; and in their circular they denounce him 



as guilty of disorderly and unchristian conduct, in escaping 
from the place of his incarceration, without the permission of 
those who committed him to his prison. And the Magazine 
of the Reformed Dutch Church, (at that time, certainly not 
yet, disavowed,) treated his departure from New-Brunswick 
as an " escape from discipline." 

Hence, one would suppose, that the privilege allowed Mr. 
Van Dyck to remain in the theological hall, was not given 
with so kind an intent as the honeyed words introduced into 
the resolutions would seem to indicate to the careless observer, 
The truth seems to be, that the honey was intended for the 
public to keep their temper sweet under the attempt to abuse 
their common sense, while it was calculated that the bitter 
part of the potion could not fail to be tasted by the student, 
and if he proved refractory in drinking it to the dregs, occa- 
sion would be afforded of accusing him of contumacy ; and 
if he should quietly swallow it down, why then a signal triumph 
would be obtained over that freedom of religious inquiry, 
which had been so presumptuously claimed by this strange 
student. Then a complete end would be seen of all religious 
speculations, which had given so much trouble to the profess- 
ors of didactic theology, and had given so much alarm to 
some of the members of the Board, and other ministers of 
our church, who value their opinions very highly for their 
orthodoxy. The truth is, and the writer has no reason for 
concealing it, that long before the final examination of Mr. 
Van Dyck, it was said by the knowing ones in the Church, that 
he was too much of a speculative turn of mind ; and it is said, 
that he has even been advised by some well meaning people, 
that never were guilty of too much speculation themselves, 
that he had better turn his mind more to practical matters. 
And there is very little doubt that Mr. Van Dyck's speculations 
have been the means of much of the persecution he has en- 
dured while in the seminary, and after he made his escape 
from it. As this supposed crime is, in my mind, a virtue, and 
as there is, in my belief, a radical error existing on this point in 
our church, I must be permitted, in some subsequent pages, 
to make a few remarks tending to place the subject in its 
proper lieht 



J8 



SECTION IV. 

Subsequent proceedings. — Mr. Van Dyck leaves the School at 
New Brunstvick. — Is licensed in the Presbyterian Churchy- 
Members of the Board enraged. — Ridiculous affectation,— 
Second meeting of the board. — Outrageous resolutions.— 
Remarks. — Call of extra synod.— -Their resolutions.-*- Close 
of the narrative. 

O love destroying, cursed Bigotry j 
Cursed in heaven, but cursed more in hell ! 
Religion's most abhorr'd. 
The infidel who turned his impious war 
Against the walls of Zion, on the rock 
Of ages built, and higher than the clouds, 
Sinned, and had his due reward ; but she 
Within her walls sinned more ; of Ignorance 
Begot, her daughter Persecution walked 
The earth from age to age, and drank the blood 
Of God's peculiar children — and was drunk ; 
And in her drunkenness dreamed of doing good. 

Course of Time, 

That the members of the Board, when they rejected the 
young student for no other crime than doubting unimportant 
doctrines, ''unreduced [and unreducible] to practice, 5 ' breamed 
they were doing good, may be believed by most of my readers ; 
and that in their subsequent persecution, after they became 
drunk with party, zeal and anger, they continued to " dream 
of doing good" will be credited by some, who are not ignorant 
of the nature and fruits of bigotry and intolerance. 

When the Board advised the student to remain in the Semi- 
nary, aware that he, at least, would consider the advice, though 
couched in the form of a request, to be intended, in fact, as a 
command, must have been morally certain that he would not 
submit to the sentence. He, unwilling for a single day to 
submit, or even appear to acquiesce, in so palpable an usur- 
pation of power, and such an attempt to coerce him in his 
religious faith, instantly left New Brunswick, and without delays 

E 



resolved to seek in another church, for a license to serve nib 
Master, in that business of life, to which he had devoted him- 
self, and all that he had. His mind was naturally led to the 
Presbyter}' of Columbia, within whose territorial bounds, he 
was born and bred, and then had his home. To bring his 
case properly before them, it seemed to him necessary to have 
some documents, to show his standing in the Seminary where 
he had received his theological education, and some other 
statement than his own, of the proceedings of the Board. It 
could not be expected, that the professors of the school should 
give him a certificate of his standing there, after the Board had 
resolved, that he should be refused a Professoral Certificate ; 
and even an unofficial statement, by the two professors, who 
were not teachers of didactic theology, would have been 
hazardous in them, and perhaps not very profitable to the 
student. He was furnished, indeed, with the final resolution 
of the Board, which, while it gave a satisfactory attestation to 
his candour, and attention to his studies, at the same time 
stated, that he had been rejected by them, for not being willing 
to subscribe the entire standards, because his mind was unsettled 
on several important doctrines. What these important doc- 
trines were, the resolution did not state. It seemed, then, very 
desirable, that he should be prepared to show the Presbytery 
what those important doctrines were, in order to enable them 
to judge of their importance. Application was accordingly 
made to a prominent member of the Board, who was present 
at the meeting, and well acquainted with Mr. Van Dyck, for a 
statement in writing, to be exhibited to the Presbytery ? 
declaring the reasons of the rejection of Mr. Van Dyck, by the 
Board. This request was refused, on the ground that such a 
certificate would properly come from the Clerk of the Board 
of Superintendants. Application was then made to the Clerk ; 
and he, after consulting with his friends, refused to give a copy 
of the proceedings, because the board had not authorizd him to 
give one ! Thus circumstanced, the harassed student had no 
alternative left, but to submit to the Presbytery a copy of the 
papers he had delivered to Dr. Milledoler, and the resolution 
of the Board ; and to rest on his own character, for credit with 



the Presbytery, as to the residue of the proceedings in his 
case. The Presbytery, it seems, did believe him, and licensed 
him. No sooner was this fact known, than the wrath of the 
Board was kindled against the Presbytery and their licentiate ; 
against him, for contumacy in refusing to remain at New 
Brunswick, "until his mind should be made correct;" and 
against the Presbytery, for doing that which they had resolved 
should not be done by any but themselves; and not by them- 
selves, until he should have been stretched to the dimensions 
of their bed. Accordingly, members of the Board assumed 
haughty airs with the young licentiate ; charged him to his 
face, with having acted uncourteously towards the Board, in 
not submitting to the sentence of imprisonment pronounced 
against him. The ordinary civility manifested by the ministers 
of the Dutch Church to Presbyterian candidates, to ask them 
to preach in their pulpits, must be denied to him, not only by 
members of the Board, but by others under their influence* 
And such as dared to show him this civility, were charged 
with despising the authority of the Dutch Church. It is in 
small matters, such as these, as well as in deeds of greater 
note and import, that the genius of intolerant pride and per* 
secution manifests itself. Thus, 

"Man, proud man, 
Drest in a little brief authority — 
Most ignorant of what he's most assured, 
His glassy essence— like an angry ape, 
Plays such fantastic tricks before high Heaven 
As makes the angels weep ; who witb our spleen 
Would all themselves laugh mortal," 

And why was such treatment given to Mr. Van Dyck ? Was 
it the expression of anger, for the insulted dignity of the Board ? 
Was it to humble the pride of the young man 1 Or was it to 
make him feel to the quick his persecuted condition, and thus 
induce him to find relief by coming cap in hand, acknowledge 
guilt, manifest shame for misconduct, and beg it as a boon to 
be received into the favour of the Board and the Church 1 
How many minds, ye sons of pride and intolerance, you have 
hy such measures broken down, and thus kept on a level with 



your own, God only knows. It was a mercy to you, that yois 
at length have met a mind capable of resisting your utmost 
efforts to coerce it into submission to your dogmas, or your 
assumed authority : or else the same omniscient Being only 
knows to what extent you would not have been hurried on in 
your efforts to break down the spirit of free inquiry, and that 
noble independence which knows no subjection but to legitU 
mate authority. 

As we have already seen, the student was licensed in Au- 
gust. No measures were taken by the Board, as a body, 
until it was ascertained what effect the uncivil and ridiculous 
treatment just mentioned had on his mind. Finding him un- 
moved, and not discovering by their agents any symptoms 
of recovery from his independence, the Board resolve to as- 
semble in November ; and we find them there no longer con- 
triving any schemes of coercion, but organizing open, undis- 
guised persecution. The young man had obtained a license, 
contrary to their will, and they determine to punish him. But 
although the hostility of the Board, and their persecuting 
spirit, was no longer cloaked, the warfare must still be carried 
on in disguise. They knew that a candidate of the Presbyte- 
rian church was entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the Dutch 
Church, and emphatically beyond the cognizance of this new 
made Board of Superintendants ; and that of course, a vote of 
censure proceeding from them, would be as harmless as w ould 
be a bull of his Holiness against Professor Milledoler. The 
object was to injure the licentiate in the Presbyterian Churchy 
where he was licensed. Their aim was to seal up his mouth 
as a minister of the gospel. They knew he could not unite 
with Episcopalians, nor Baptists, nor with any other denomi- 
nation than the Dutch, or Presbyterian, or Congregational 
Churches. They knew well, that he could not, after the treat- 
ment he had received, consent to beg admission into the 
Dutch Church ; unless they had reason to believe, that his 
constitution was as congenial to live and exercise the ministry 
of the gospel in the fire of persecution, as that of the sala- 
mander is said to be, to live in material fire. But still, they affect 
to believe that he had obtained his license with purpose 



37 



to enter the Dutch Church, and that he persisted in that pur- 
pose. Had Mr. Van Dyck given any reason for this supposi- 
tion ? Had he preached, or had he offered to preach in any of 
the vacant congregations of the Dutch Church ? Or did they 
measure his mind by their own ; and thus suppose that he could 
choose to live in contention all his life, while professing to 
teach the maxims of the meek and peaceful Saviour ] True, 
as a candidate of the Presbyterian Church, he might have 
claimed the right of preaching in the pulpits of the Dutch 
Church; — and the same privilege might be claimed by a licen- 
ciate of the Dutch Church, to preach as a candidate in the 
Presbyterian Church. If then the classis of New- York should, 
in the exercise of their constitutional powers, license a man to 
preach the gospel, would that authorize the theological pro- 
fessors or trustees at Princeton, or Auburn, to denounce the 
licentiate as a heretic, under the pretence that he might pre- 
sume to claim the right of preaching in that Church 1 And say 
that he had been refused at Auburn, on the ground as a dis- 
belief of unlimited atonement, and the classis of New- York 
had then licensed him, not considering his creed or his dis- 
qualification, in what light would such interference at Auburn 
be viewed in our church 1 The Board could hardly have been 
ignorant that their proceedings were wholly irregular and un- 
authorized. Much allowance must be made, I admit, for pre- 
judice and party rage, so apt to blind men in the perception of 
the principles of right and wrong ; but it will not do to be too 
liberal in this respect, lest you may confound altogether unin- 
tentional error with wilful mischief. The Board then post the 
licentiate as an unchristian, disorderly, dangerous character. 
They denounce him ostensibly to the Dutch Churches—vir- 
tually to the Presbyterian Church ; because in the former he 
had nothing to do, and in the latter (he denunciation would 
have all the effect which the character of the denouncing party 
could give it. They demand of the Presbytery of Columbia 
Instantly to revoke iheir license, and threaten to bring the 
matter before the General Assembly, in case of refusal. By 
these measures the circular of the Board became as public 
in the Presbyterian, as in the Dutch Church ; and the Board 



well knew it would be so, and intended to have it so. When 
the Synod afterwards met in April, not a single member, even 
of the Board, could be found to defend the circular All 
knew it to be unauthorized ; but the work had been done. 
One of the members of the Board, with much self devotion to 
the cause of intolerance and persecution, professed his entire 
willingness to turn his back to the Synod, to be smitten in the 
form of an empty vote of censure on the Board for the issuing 
of the circular ; thus evincing the complacency felt in the 
deed, and the impossibility of having the effects of the circular 
recalled by the Synod : and doubtless at the conclusion of the 
proceedings in November, every devoted son of intolerence 
was prepared in his heart to exclaim with Mark Antony, after 
his inflammatory speech on the death of Caesar had began to 
influence the minds of his hearers, 

(£ Now let it work. — Mischief thou art on foot ; 
Take what course thou wilt." 

After reading the history of this second meeting of the 
Board, (see Appendix) it cannot be matter of surprise to learn, 
that all their proceedings were had, and the circular issued, in 
the absence of the person who was so deeply affected by them, 
both in his interests and feelings. One would have presumed 
that a body of men, professing to act in the fear of God, and 
in ove to men, before they proceeded to adjudicate upon the 
guilt of an individual, and especially a preacher of the gospel, 
and to pass sentence upon him, would have given him notice 
of the time, place, and object of their meeting, and requested 
his attendance. Had he been cited to appear, he might have 
satisfied them, that he did not suppose a dismissal from the 
seminary was at all needful, before he could regularly present 
himself to the Presbytery. He might have satisfied them, 
that he did not intend to offer himself to the Dutch Churches 
at all, He might have interposed some difficulties as to the 
right of the Board to meddle with his license, or with the 
Presbytery. For these very reasons, it perhaps did not com- 
port with the views of the. lenders in the Board, to have the 



39 

object of their vengeance before them. He might, perchance^ 
have staggered some of the brethren, who were not proof 
against the claims of justice and reason ; and this might have 
defeated the whole object of the meeting. I repeat, therefore 5 
it is no wonder at all, that these men went on in the absence 
of Mr. Van Dyck, and without giving him any notice, and con- 
demned him, in palpable violation of the universally received 
maxim, that no man is to be condemned unheard. It was 
perfectly in character for them to deny to a christian brother, 
a fellow-preacher of the gospel of righteousness, and of 
character as fair as they could ever boast, the privilege allowed 
in every court, ecclesiastical or civil, to every criminal, whether 
he be a drunkard, adulterer, counterfeiter, robber, murderer, 
traitor, or the meanest felon. 

The minds of the Board had been prepared for these 
outrageous proceedings by an article in the Magazine of the 
Reformed Dutch Church, for October, 1827 — the professed 
object of which was to show, that a denial of the doctrine of 
eternal generation had been condemned as heresy by the 
Dutch and British churches ; that it deserved deposition and 
excommunication ; and that any Presbyter) licensing a man 
who denied the doctrine, violated their duty to God and man. 
Although the case of Mr. Van Dyck is not mentioned in that 
article, it needs no eagle eye to perceive that its object was 
to prepare the Board for energetic measures at the meeting, 
which was to take place on the first day of November. In 
this age of coincidences, it may be worthy of notice, that the 
same Dr. Brownlee, who conducts the aforesaid magazine, 
was appointed the chairman of the committee which reported 
the violent resolutions adopted at that meeting. 

It was under this load of injurious and persecuting treat- 
ment, that Mr. Van Dyck deemed it his duty to lay before the 
public, in the form of a pamphlet, a short history of the case, 
with remarks on his own motives and views, and on the acts 
of the Board ; — and, although written with the mildness and 
modesty becoming his youth and his situation, scarcely had it 
issued from the press, before we hear of the call of an extra 
meeting of the General Synod, to be held on the 23d of 



40 



April, 1828, at the city of Albany. The regular annual meet- 
ing of the Synod, was to take place on the first Wednesday 
in June — only six weeks afterwards. But this time could not 
be lost. The case was one of great urgency. A heretic, of 
most malignant character, it was apprehended, would, in the 
interim, make most cruel havoc among the poor sheep of the 
flock, and " dragoon the church into Hopkinsianism," unless 
the General Synod should give a speedy sanction to the pro- 
ceedings of the Board. The offence, too, of the Columbia 
Presbytery was so rank, that the least delay in bringing them 
to condign punishment, would have looked like winking at 
their crime. If these were not the reasons of this extra call 
of the Synod, what were those reasons? The proposed 
Sabbath School Union of the Dutch Church, was indeed 
annexed to the other case, as one of the subjects of delibera- 
tion, at the approaching Synod. But that matter could scarcely 
have been the occasion of so much haste, as the New-York 
Union could not well have devoured the children in that short 
time. Or was there another reason for this extra call ? Was 
it believed that the members of the then present Synod could 
be counted on as more " honest men and true," than those of 
the approaching Synod might be, their names not being as yet 
known 1 This is a question not for the writer, but for those 
to answer who made the call. 

Whatever might have been the object in the call of that 
Synod, and whatever may have been the expectations of the 
Hoard, in regard to the proceedings to be had there, it was to 
that Synod that Mr. Van iJyck and his friends had the 
right to look for that justice which was denied him by the 
Board. There were men in that S)nod who were capable 
of discerning the violation of ail law and justice, by the 
Board of Superintendants, in their proceedings against Mr, 
Tan Dyck, at their second meeting ; and of duly weighing 
the bearing of their proceedings at the first meeting, upon the 
rights of conscience, and the true interests of the Theological 
School, and the Church at large. Yet, under the circum- 
stances of the case, it was perhaps too much to expect from 
"hat Synod, anions? whom were found a goodly number, an^ 



41 

( hat too of the most influential members oi that very Board 
whose conduct was to be approved or disapproved. The 
power of that Board is too great for the safety of the church. 
Great pains had been taken prior to the meeting of the Synod 5 
that, when assembled, their acts should indicate a middle 
course, so as to save, as far as possible, the feelings of the 
members of the Board, who had done manifest wrong and 
injustice ; and, at the same time, to make some atonement for 
the insult offered to the community, in their outrageous pro- 
ceedings. This scheme was carried into effect. The Synod 
passed three resolutions, (see Appendix) in the first of which 
they approve of the course pursued by the Board, in withhold- 
ing the professoral certificate from Mr. Van Dyck, until his 
doubts should be removed, or the Synod should have the 
opportunity to pass finally upon his case. In their second 
resolution, they refer it. to the General Assembly of the Pres- 
byterian Church, to determine whether the licensure of Mr. 
Van Dyckby the Presbytery of Columbia, was in accordance 
with the articles of correspondence between the two churches. 
And in their third resolution, they declare that the Board, at 
their second meeting, had assumed powers not belonging to 
them, and for which they express their decided disapprobation. 

It is much to be regretted, that so venerable a body, as the 
General Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church, should have 
approved of the proceedings of the Board at their first meet- 
ing ; and it is more to be lamented, that they did not say a 
word of the violence and injustice of their acts at the second 
meeting, and contented themselves with declaring the want of 
authority. The writer of this pamphlet regrets the first, not 
only as it has thrown on him the task of exposing to the public 
the true character of the proceedings of the oard at the 
meeting in July, but also because the highest ecclesiastical 
judicatory of his church is thus made in measure partaker in 
the errors of the Board, and which errors he deems and expects 
to prove, are in their tendency, subversive of right, and in 
their operation, will be extremely prejudicial to the vital 
interests of the church. It is not my object to say much in 
regard to the Svnod, nor to treat them with disrespect. Yet I 

F 



cannot, from courtesy to that or any human tribunal, consent 
to surrender the exercise of my reason to their decrees. The 
question of right and wrong, in this matter, depends on the 
sense of the holy scriptures of God ; and if the Board have, 
in their acts, violated the principles contained in the only 
infallible standard of truth, it is as competent for me to prove 
it after, as it was before, any decision of the Synod was pro- 
nounced. 

Immediately after the adjournment of the Synod, a muti- 
lated account of their proceedings was published in the New- 
York Observer, furnished by a member of the Synod ; in 
which the vote of censure upon the Board was wholly sup- 
pressed. This member of the Synod was also a member of 
the Board, and had given his attendance at both the first and 
second meeting. 

The General Assembly convened at Philadelphia, in the 
month of May, and on the matter referred to them by the 
the Synod of the Dutch church, declared, that the Presbytery 
of Columbia, in granting to Mr. Van Dyck a license to preach 
the gospel, had not violated any of the articles of correspond- 
ence between the two churches. The annual meeting of the 
General Synod of the Dutch church was to commence on 
the first Wednesday in June, then next. It was expected, 
that the decision of the General Assembly would have been 
officially communicated to the Synod. Therefore, it was 
deemed needful, that the members of that body should be 
instructed how to act in the business. This duty, of course, 
devolved on the editor of the Magazine, as the organ or 
speaking trumpet of the Dutch church, always acquainted 
with the sentiments and views of that church. After remark- 
ing that the extra synod, notwithstanding their condemnation 
of the circular, had not left an opening for the- heretical Mr. 
Van Dyck to enter the Dutch church, he instructs the ensuing 
Synod not to open the flood-gates of error, and be dragooned 
into Hopkinsianism, by any concession to that dangerous 
Presbyterian licentiate. The Synod are further directed, in 
that magazine, " to cut asunder the unprofitable and danger- 
ous correspondence" between the two churches, so as to 



48 

ao away the facility of offenders escaping from the discipline 
of our church, getting a license from some Presbytery, and 
then returning back unanointed and unannealed, with all the 
errors of eastern theology clustering on them, &c. &c. (See 
Magazine for June, 1828.) The obedience of the General 
Synod to these mandates was not put to the test, inasmuch 
as the General Assembly did not make any official communi- 
cation to the General Synod, in relation to the matter referred 
to them. And thus this business must needs be left in " statu 
</uo" for another year, unless its extreme urgency should 
bring together another extra Synod., on the call of Dr. Brown- 
lee and others, 



* 



44 



SECTION V. 

Mr. Van Dyctfs punishment. — His crime, indulgence in specula- 
Hons, which led him to doubt the standards, — Consideration of 
this charge. — Definition of the term speculation. — Second 
crime, his refusal to yield the right, tohich every man, and es- 
pecially students have, to examine the Bible for themselves.— 
Emmple of Luther, the apostles, and Christ. 

* — — " For this they met, 

Assembled, counselled, meditated, planned, 
Devised in open and secret j and for this 
Enacted creeds of wondrous texture, creeds 
The Bible never own'd— — — - 

— (and waving now the sword 

Of persecution fierce, tempered in hell) 
Forced on the conscience of inferior men." 

We have thus given the history of this young man, who hau 
the misfortune of incurring the displeasure of the Professor 
of didactic theology, for not surrendering his reason to his 
teaching, and his conscience to his keeping: we have seen 
him pursued by the Professor into the Board of Superintend- 
ants : we have seen that body exercising inquisitorial power, 
and attempting to coerce him into a subscription to doctrines, 
which he assured them he could not find in the Bible. We 
have seen them insist on his compliance as the condition of 
his licensure, and sentencing him to confinement in the theo- 
logical hall "until his mind should be made correct/' We 
have seen the same Board in their rage, when they found him 
indisposed to submit to farther coercion, do their utmost to de- 
grade him in the eyes of the Christian community, branding 
him as a heretic, issuing circulars denouncing him as a disor- 
derly, unchristian, and dangerous licentiate ; and doing all in 
their power, after he had received from another denomination 
that license which among his own he was not permitted to re- 
ceive, to prevent his usefulness or his comfort any where. 
They have effectually succeeded in blasting his prospects of a 



viuiement in the church of his fathers, among the Dutch people., 
in whose manners and habits he had grown up, and among 
whom, for that reason, he had the right to look for comfort in 
his intercourse, and success in ihe ministry of the gospel. We 
have seen the General Synod, the highest judicatory in the 
church, remse to wipe away the reproach so unjustly cast upon 
the young man by the Board, ana at least appar enttysanc- 
tioning the proceedings ot the Board at their first meeting, 
where the wrinig and injustice commenced. By these mea- 
sures a wound has been inflicted on nis parents, under the 
anguish of which they ma) descend to their graves. 

It is a very natural inquiry, what Mr. Van Dyck has done to 
deserve such treatment ; what is his crime ? The whole ex- 
tent of it is this, that he has doubts wnether the term Son of 
God is applied to the Saviour, as designating his nature, or his 
office of mediator. He admits Jesus Christ to be essentially 
God from all eternity, and if the term Son of God is applied 
to him in reference to his natural relation to the Father, then 
he admits the propriety of the expression in the iOth article of 
the Confession of Faith, that he was begotten irom eternity* 
But if the term Son ol God is used to denote his office of 
mediator, then the expression in the 10th article is unwar- 
ranted ; and in as much as the Bible does not in his opinion 
decide this question, he could not say that he had sufficient 
evidence to enable him to lorm any opinion on the subject 
He also doubts the propriety of the expression in the 11th 
article, that the Holy Spirit had from eternity proceeded from 
the Father and the Son. Not that he has any doubt that the 
Holy Spirit is essentially God, and has been trom all eternity ; 
but he is not convinced that the scriptures declare the manner 
of the Spirit's existence always to have been in a procession 
from the two other persons m the Trinity Let any intelligent 
man examine the passages of Scripture cited to prove these 
two abstruse doctrines, and he will be surprised alter all the 
noise made, how little light the Scriptures cast on the subject, 
JNow as these are questions relating to the nature and mode 
of existence of the incomprehensible God, we cannot have 
any further evidence, than what it has pleased him to reveal 



46 



in his own word. All conjectures and speculations of mm 
are idle, and all inferences from texts not in point, are, to say 
the least, extremely unsafe. On the first doctrine much has 
been written ; and men of the first standing lor piety, talents, 
and usefulness, have advoca ed different SLdes of the question, 
I am not aware that much has been written on the doctrine of 
eternal procession; and it does apptar to me that very little 
can be said, unless writers should indulge in tne wildest and 
most presumptuous conjectures on a subject entirely depen- 
dent on Revelation, and on wnich that Revelation is almost 
wholly silent. Both points of doctrine have been raised by 
men, and in my view, are calculated to introduce "strife about 
words to no purpose," and " ministering questions, rather than 
godly edifying and so condemnea in 1 Tim. i. 4. vi. 20., & 
Tim. ii. 14. In Scott's Family Biole, a work which has been 
introduced into many Dutch iamiiies, through the recommen- 
dation and encouragement ol the prominent ministers ol our 
own church, there is a very sensible note to the 26th verse of 
the fifteenth chapter of John. In that verse, the Saviour 
promises to send unto his disciples, " from the Father, the 
Spirit of truth which proceedeth irom the Father." The fol- 
lowing is an extract irom the note ol the Commentator 
" The Holy Sp rit is here said to proceed Irom the Father, and 
" many suppose this to reter not only to his being sent lorth 
" from the Father and the Son, (as the Son was from the 
" Father,) a willing messenger to apply the salvation of Christ 
"to his chosen people ; but to what is called his eternal pro- 
" cession from the Father ; by which is meant someuring 
"similar to the eternal generation of the Son. But these are 
"incomprehensible masteries, anu (uiougu inserted in most 
**'of the ancient creeds and formularies,; seem not to be expli- 
" citly and evidently rmmkd." Tins extract from Scott, is 
not made, nor are the preceding remarks made, to prove that 
neither the doctrine ot eternal generation, or eternal procession 
are founded in truth ; but for the purpose of showing that they 
are not explicitly and evidently revealed , and thai, therefore, 
it cannot be criminal or strange, that good men should enter- 
tain diverse opinions ; and that, at all events, it ought to b© 



47 



deemed neither criminal nor strange, that a student of divinity 
should be troubled with doubts respecting them.* But the 
student was also undecided whether the death of Christ was 
for all, or only a portion of the human family. This question 
has also long divided theologians, who are otherwise of the 
same sentiments , and never ought to be permitted to occasion 
a breach of christian fellowship, and which is at least left 
doubtful in our standards, as will be more fully shown hereafter. 
No objection, at all events, can be made to the student on 
this score, inasmuch as he avowed before the Board his willing- 
ness to subscribe the article of our church, on that point of 
doctrine. These are all the doctrines on which Mr. Van 
Dyck failed to come to the same conclusion with the mem- 
bers of the Board ; and these are the " several important doc- 
trines" on which they state that he was labouring, so that he 
could not subscribe the entire standards of the church, and for 
which they rejected him, as unfit to be admitted into the 
ministry of the church ! 

The Board say nothing in regard to the doub fulness or 
plainness of these doctrines ; but they allege them to be im- 
portant. This topic has been so fully discussed and proved 
in Mr. Van Dyck's pamphlet, that I shall content myself in 
this place with reminding my readers, that these doctrines, 
(namely, eternal generation and procession, the other being 
out of question by Mr. Van Dyck's conformity to the standards 
on that point,) are scare? ly ever discussed in our pulpits ; the 
doctrine of eternal procession never to my knowledge. It is 
not contained in the Heidelberg Catechism ; and this omis- 

* It was with a very ill grace that Dr. MUledoler quarrelled with Mr. Van 
Dyck for embracing the sentiments expressed in the above extract from Scott's 
Family Bible, as he has himself recommended that book to all the friends of 
Christian knowledge, as an instructive, well digested, and purely evavgdical 
work; as a treasure of religious instruction A good recommendalion, but very 
unfortunate for the Doctor's purpose in this instance -, quite as much so a?, that 
of a certain professor who advised his student that had doubts on the doctrines 
of eternal generation and procession, to read Gill's Body of Divinity ; and the 
student found the author arguing indeed for the eternal generation, but against 
the eternal procession. The Doctor might have done as well to abide by Mark\ 
Medulla, and perhaps better to abide by the Bible without note or comment 



48 



sion would hardly have been made, if the doctrine were au 
important one. Now then, there is but one important doctrine 
left, instead of several, on which the student's mind, as the 
Board alleged, was labouring, and that is the eternal genera- 
tion. And will the Board and the S^nod of the Reformed 
Dutch church maintain, that a doubt of this one doctrine is so 
erin^nal or so dang rous, as to require the rejection fhe 
doubting man from the ministry of the gospel ? Then le* «e 
assure you, that, twentv years hence, we will have few minis- 
ters in the church. The articles will not bp taken for granted, 
as they have been. They will undergo discussion, and ^ome 
of our best men will doubt. And who will send his son to 
our theological school, if his licensure shall depend on his be- 
lieving such disputable and, in themselves, unimportant mat- 
ters ; rendered important only bv church power or caprice ? 

Yes, it is maintained that Van Pvck was justly rejected from 
the ministry of the gospel in our church, if he doubted any 
one of the articles in our standards : that he ousrht not to 
have entered the seminary, unless he intended to submit his 
judgment to his teachers, and other superiors in the church. 
Time has been when a father, sending his son to be educated 
for the ministry, never dreamed, that he had aught to do but 
to learn what was taught him by his instructed As to the 
exercise of his own judgment independent of the teacher, this 
was not thought of by the father, the son, or the theological 
professor. If the pupil could not repeat the propositions laid 
down for him, in the same form they were given, no other 
reason for such a result could be devised, except that the pupil 
lacked genius, or attachable disposition, or that he had not had 
sufficient time " to be made correct." The least disposition in a 
young man to reason for himself, differently from tht reasoning 
of his teachers, would have been viewed by his family as a most 
grievous calamity. So it was in the case of a young Spaniard, 
educated for the priesthood in the Roman Catholic church. 
He had the imprudence to express, in the presence of his 
mother, some doubts whether all the doctrines of the church 
were true. She loved him ; and mourned over his calamity, 
and her own hard condition. She shunned his company* ?e« 



the repetition ot his doubts should constrain her conscience 
to accuse him to the inquisition. He, learning her state oi 
mind, left his home and country, took up his residence in 
England, and became established in the protestant religion. 
This man was a dangerous speculator in the eyes of his mother, 
as Mr. Van Dyck was in the apprehension of Dr. Milledoler, 
and the members of the board of superintendants. In their 
belief, Mr. Van Dyck had not the right to speculate on such 
abstruse points, as the eternity of the Sonship and of the pro- 
cession ; as he ought to have known, that these matters had 
long since undergone speculations, until they had become as 
firmly settled as any proposition in Euclid. They believe 
that by the speculations of St. Athanasius, about fifteen hun- 
dred years ago, it became, and is now certain, that Jesus 
Christ, as God, is of the substance of the father, begotten before 
the world ; and as man, of the substanee of his mother, born 
in time ; and that he is not one with the Father by mixture of 
substance, but by unity of person : and that all who do not 
believe this, (though the Bible no where declares any thing as 
to several of these propositions,) " shall, without doubt, perish 
everlastingly." (See constitution of the Reformed Dutch 
church, 145.) They also believe, that by the speculations of 
the authors of our Confession of Faith, and the Synod of 
Dort, two hundred years ago, it is now settled, that Jesus 
Christ was from eternity, begotten by the father, and that the 
Holy Spirit from all eternity proceeded from the Father and 
the Son. But they believe, moreover, that the age of specu- 
lation has passed by, as much as the age of miracles has ; 
that what was very necessary and praiseworthy in the days of 
our ancestors, is now very heretical and presumptuous : and 
that all we have to do now, is simply to swallow down specu- 
lations made in the proper age of the world. There is, per- 
haps, little doubt that the offence taken by Professor Mille- 
doler at Mr. Van Dyck, has been because of the trouble the 
former has met from what he deemed in the latter an inclina- 
tion to speculation. The Professor is mistaken. The term 
is misapplied to the student, but would be properly applicable 
to the Professor himself, had he originated all the notions he 

G 



DO 



teaches m the school. A fair examination into the meaning 
of the scriptures ought never to be reproached by the name of 
speculation; but it is a contrary practice that deserves the 
odium and the name, namely, the presumptuous attempt to 
clear up every doubt and difficulty in relation to the mysteries 
of God's word ; the endeavour to reduce to the form of 
mathematical precision notions concerning the person and 
mode of existence of the incomprehensible triune God, not 
explicitly and evidently declared in the Bible. Of this species 
of speculation, it is to be hoped, that Mr. Van Dyck and every 
theological student will always beware ; but that they will 
never surrender to any man, or body of men, the right which 
God has given them, to examine and exercise their judgment 
upon the meaning of the holy scriptures, yielding themselves 
to the, teaching of the Holy Spirit alone. A young man 
whose lot it may be, to be born of popish parents, and to have 
a popish professor of theology, to guide him in the course of 
Ills studies, is not thereby discharged from the duty of applying 
with diligence and prayerfulness, to deduce light from the foun- 
tain of light, nor is he brought under the obligation to 
surrender the exercise of his understanding, in deference to 
the decrees of councils, or the Pope. The case is not 
changed in the person of Mr. Van Dyck, by the circumstance 
of his being sent into the Seminary of the Reformed Dutch 
Church. The Bible still remains the only infallible standard ; 
and he had no more right to take it for granted that the stand- 
ards of the Dutch Church were in all points correct, than he 
would have been to give implicit credence to the Roman con- 
fession of faith, in a Roman school of theology. 

It was in the exercise of the same unalienable right, of exer- 
cising his own judgment, under divine teaching, on the mean- 
ing of the scriptures, that Luther, and the early reformers, 
suffered persecution, and final excommunication, from the 
church of Rome. To pass over the history of the martyrs, and 
of persecution for conscience' sake, after the close of scripture 
history, let us mention in this connexion, a case or two, from 
the sacred records themselves. The apostles, Peter and John, 
were Jews, born in the Jewish church. The- scribes wtere 



the acknowledged expounders of the scriptures m that church. 
In the exercise of their legitimate powers, they had adjudged 
that Jesus was not the Christ, but had been lawfully put to 
death as a blasphemer. These apostles, however, notwith- 
standing the authority of the church, preached that Jesus was 
the Christ, and was risen from the dead. The elders, scribes, 
and high priests interposed their authority, and forbade them 
not to speak at all, or preach in the name of Jesus. Did 
Peter and John admit that the church had any coercing power 
over their consciences, so as to dictate to them in matters of 
faith ? No ! they put it on the right footing, asserting their 
obligation to be, to hearken to God and not to men. The 
Saviour had told the disciples, who were all born in the Jewish 
church, to beware of men, for they would deliver them up to the 
councils, and scourge them in their synagogues. Does he 
tell his disciples to yield obedience to the teachings of the 
ecclesiastical authorities, and that in case of refusal they would 
be justly punished by the church as for crimes ? But let us 
consider the case of the Lord and Saviour himself. Was he 
not also (I speak of him as to his human nature) a member 
of the Jewish church ? Was he not circumcised, according 
to the Jewish law/ Was there any difference between 
Christ, and another Jew, in respect of the duty of obedience, 
to the lawful ccmmands of the church ] It seems to me, his 
whole history evinces, that he did not claim any difference to 
exist. What was the conduct of Christ, as it regarded the 
teachings of the Jewish church ? Did he give any counte- 
nance to the dogmas of the scribes, as binding on his conscience, 
or those of others % Did he believe himself bound to coincide 
with their views of the Messiah ? Did he render obedience to 
the teachings of the scribes, farther than those teachings coin- 
cided with the scriptures 1 And did be not claim the right, to 
interpret the Word of God for himself ? And did he not openly 
reprove the Scribes and Pharisees, charging them with teach- 
ing for doctrines, the commandments of men ? And did he 
not do this, in presence of his disciples, and thereby teach 
them to claim the same right of conscience for themselves ? 
Nay, does he not warn them, not to call any man masf^i' 1 



Mad the Jewish ecclesiastical rulers bareiy oast ori Jesus 
Christ for non-conformity to their standards, they might have 
told him as our churches now tell; men, that will not. adopt 
every word of their creeds, "We do you no injury — the world is 
open to you — go to the Gentiles. Every society has the right 
to adopt its own rules of faith and practice ; and if ours please 
you not, we just give you the opportunity to retire from our 
communion ; and if you can suit yourself any where else, it 
is well ; if not, it is your misfortune or fault, and not ours. v 
This would have been the language of the Jews to the Lord 
Jesus and his apostles, if they had not possessed the physical 
power to scourge, imprison, and put them to death. Such would 
he the language of the Popish Church in Spain, if they had 
neither the inquisition to coerce men into the faith, or in case 
of contumacy, power to punish the stubborn man by burning 
him at an auto de fe, and, by the same sacred engine of power, 
deter others from non-conformity. 

Now, I ask with earnestness and anxiety, had not the Jews, 
and have not the Roman Catholics, the same right to force the 
dogmas of the church upon the consciences of the members 
of their respective churches, as the Reformed Dutch Church 
has to do the same with her members 1 They went farther in 
their persecution, because they had the power. But what 
would the Board of Superintendants have done, if they had 
possessed the power ? W e may form some judgment on 
this matter by what they have done. But I must not wander 
from my present business, which is to show what was the duty 
of Mr. Van Dyck in his circumstances. In the course of 
my remarks, it has been shown that when he entered the semi- 
nary as a theological student, he not only had the right, but it 
was his most solemn duty, to learn theology from the Bible, 
The professors had the right, and it was their duty, to direct 
his course of studies, to teach him their opinions on theology,, 
showing the reasons for their opinions ; but they had not the 
right to quarrel with him for not understanding the Bible as 
they did. Nor had the board of superintendants any right to 
take up the quarrel in behalf of the Professor of didactic theo- 
logy, I know well, it may look like assuming high grouno; 



6$ 

tor a young man to pretend to know, or aim at knowing- 
more than his teachers. But my doctrine does not lead to 
this conclusion. Any man that barely possesses common sense,, 
has the right to refuse his assent to what the wisest man may 
say on any matter of religious opinion, until his judgment is 
convinced. Nay, it is his indispensable duty. We may not 
take religious opinions on the credit of any man, or any body 
of men. " Let God be true, and every man a liar." And cer- 
tainly a student of theology, expecting to become a teacher of 
others, ought to become well acquainted with the Bible— the 
fountain of knowledge—and to exercise his own judgment, en- 
lightened by the Holy Spirit, as to the true meaning of the 
Scriptures. He may, by yielding implicit assent to what is 
taught him, get much by rote, but his mind, after all, will not 
embrace much that is valuable to himself or others. He may 
acquire a stock of other men's ideas and opinions, while he 
acquires very few of his own. The disciples of a famous 
Greek philosopher wanted nothing better than the opinion of 
their master ; and "ipse dixit" silenced every scruple, and 
doubt, and opposition. So the Jewish doctors had gained the 
complete ascendancy over the minds of their students, so that 
the utmost ambition of the latter soared no higher than to 
learn what his master knew. As to his ability or duty to learn 
any thing beyond, or his questioning the truth of what be was 
taught, the idea never entered his mind. In allusion to this 
state of facts it is, that Jesus Christ says, " The disciple is not 
above his master ; but every one that is perfect shall be as his 
master." This was the received opinion in his day among the 
Jews, whose teachers craved the titles of Rabbi, Master, or 
Father, and their disciples had their views of perfection limited to 
the knowledge of their teacher. It was to elevate the Christian 
disciple above this grovelling sentiment, that he directs him not 
to call any man father. And he shows the danger of the senti- 
ment in the parable, Luke vi. 40, which he opens by saying, 
i; If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch ;" and 
then adds the verse above quoted : that is to say, If the scribe, 
who undertakes to teach, should be blind to the meaning of 
the scriptures, and you rely on his teaching, you will fall with 



54 

kirn into the same ditch. You have a better guide, the script* 
lures themselves able to make you wise unto salvation. 
The Saviour did not direct the disciple from a single scribe to 
a council of them, as affording greater probability of arriving 
at the truth ; nor to a succession of them ever since the return 
from the Babylonish captivity ; for that would have thrown 
him among the, traditions of the elders, by which the scribes 
and Pharisees made void the law of God, and taught for doc- 
trines still, the commandments of men, instead of the com- 
mandments of God. It was to repress in the Christian teachers 
the spirit of the Jewish doctors, that the Saviour tells his disci- 
ples, " Be ye not called Rabbi." " Be ye not called Masters." 
The Saviour yet speaks (for the word of God endureth for- 
ever,) to every student of theology : Search the Scriptures : 
pray for the spirit of truth to guide you into all truth ; receive 
no man's interpretations without examination. Manyimportant 
errors have been introduced under great names, and perpetu- 
ated without examination, through successive generations, 
Allow of no master in your teachings but God. Jesus Christ 
yet speaks to every teacher of theology : Assume not the title 
and consequence of a master, as though you had the right to 
command acquiescence in your opinions. If your pupils see 
not with your eyes, do not quarrel with them, as though they 
doubted your capacity, or refused to assent from perverse un= 
teachableness. Cramp not the minds of your students— hear 
their reasons patiently, and encourage them to exercise their 
reasoning powers. He yet speaks to public bodies in the re- 
sponsible station in which our board of superintendants stands. 
Do not countenance in your professors of theology the ambi- 
tion of being masters over the consciences of your students. 
Do not thus enslave the minds of your future ministers of the 
gospel ; unless you are content to entail upon the church an 
inefficient ministry, and to ensure the perpetuity of whatever 
errors may creep into it. 



m 



SECTION VI. 

Mr. Van Dyck's crimes— -His unbelief — Christ licensed his dis- 
ciples to preach, notwithstanding their unbelief of the doctrine 
of his approaching death or resurrection — God commissioned 
Moses to deliver Israel and guide them to Canaan, notwith- 
standing his unbelief of God's promise of assistance, 

" The wisdom of men is foolishness with God." 

" But in Religion they at once grew wise, 

A creed in print, though never understood, 

A theologic system on the shelf, 

Was spiritual lore enough, and ser?'d their turn j 

But serv'd it ill." 

By some, the crime of Mr. Van Dyck is stated in another 
form, namely, that he was guilty of unbelief in doctrines 
which our standards profess to have drawn from the scriptures,, 
and that therefore he was justly punished, by being rejected 
from the ministry. 

Admitting, now, that the Board had what they claim to have 
had, the right to put the orthodoxy of the student to the test 3 
by requiring his subscription to the points on which he doubted, 
was it expedient for them so to do ? Was it wise for them to 
insist on his immediate compliance, and to refuse him the pri- 
vilege of applying to classis, because he did not instantly 
yield 1 And when they demanded his continuance in the 
seminary, did they suppose that he would not see the attempt 
at coercion ; and if he should, was it not evident that his stay 
would not only have been useless, but absurd and criminal 1 
Could not the Board have intrusted him to the care of the 
classis, hoping that they would perform their duties, and that 
the mind of the student, by that time, might have become 
more settled 1 Would not such rnilo\ affectionate, and rational 



treatment have been better calculated to preserve the good of 
the student, and the interests of the School and of the Church ? 
Was there a necessity of having the matter determined by this 
body, unknown to the constitution, stepping into, if not usurp- 
ing, the powers vested in the classis 7 Was there a necessity 
to attempt to hold the student to yield his doubts or unbelief 
now ; now, before he leaves the Theological School ? Did our 
Lord do so with his disciples 1 Did not he grant licenses to 
preach the gospel ? He did ; and what he did is full of interest 
and instruction. He took frequent occasion to inform his 
disciples of his approaching death ; but they were much in- 
clined to disbelieve him. Mark viii. SI. "And he began to 
teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and 
be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests and scribes, 
and be killed, and after three days rise again — and he spoke 
that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke 
him." This was after the disciples had seen many of his 
miracles, and heard much of his preaching. And after the 
transfiguration of our blessed Saviour on the Mount, recorded 
in the ninth chapter of Mark, in the 31st verse, he taught his 
disciples, and said unto them : " The Son of man is delivered 
into the hands of men, and they shall kill him ; and after that 
he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they understood 
not this saying, and were afraid to ask him." And again, 
Mark x. 32. " And he took again the twelve, and began to 
tell them what things should happen to him, saying, behold, we 
go to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered unto 
the chief priests and the scribes, and they shall condemn him 
to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles ; and they shall 
mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and 
shall kill him, and the third day he shall rise again." So far 
were the disciples from believing in the approaching death of 
their Lord, that two of them applied for an office in the tem- 
poral kingdom which they expected he was about to erect. 
Some of my readers may be surprised to hear that all this 
transpired after the disciples had been licensed to preach the 
gospel, the account of which is recorded in the sixth chapter 
of Mark. What did the Saviour do on these manifestations of 



their unbelief ? Did he revoke their license, on the gioua 

was now evident they did not believe what they had been 
taught, and which had been repeated so many times ? No ; he 
rebukes them indeed for their unbelief, but did not condemn 
them as heretics, and seal up their lips from preaching the 
gospel. There was yet another doctrine on which the disci- 
ples of our Lord were very incredulous, namely, his resurrec- 
tion. On descending the mount, after his transfiguration, he 
charged his disciples that they should tell no man what things 
they had seen, till the Son of man was risen from the dead. 
And they kept that saying among themselves, questioning one 
with another what the rising from the dead should mean. 
Mark ix. 9, 10. And in the passage above quoted, to show the 
unbelief of the disciples as to his approaching death, he tells 
them also of his resurrection, but they believed not. And 
after the crucifixion and death of the Saviour, they still re- 
mained incredulous. Matt, xxviii. 16. " Then the eleven dis- 
ciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus 
had appointed them. And when they saw him, they wor- 
shipped, but some doubted. Mark is more particular. After 
mentioning the appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene^ 
after his resurrection, he says, chap. xvi. " And she told 
them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And 
they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been 
seen of her, believed not. After this, he appeared in another 
form unto two of them as they walked and went into the 
country. And they went and told it unto the residue, neither 
believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven 
as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief 
and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which 
had seen him after he was risen." Now one would think 
they would have been given up as wholly unteachable— espe- 
cially would one think so who had learned no more of the qua- 
lifications of ministers of the gospel than what is to be learned 
from the proceedings of our Board of Superintendants. But 
Christ thought differently, as the history shows ; — for Mark adds 
immediately in the very next verse. " 4nd he said unto them, 
a?o ye into all the world ; preach the gospel to every creature, 

H 



58 



And Matthew relates to the like effect. So that on the proof 
of their unbelief of the doctrine of the resurrection, instead oi 
declaring them unfit to preach the gospel, which before they 
were to preach to the Jews only, he instantly renews their 
commission, and extends it so as to license them to go into all 
the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Let me 
not be told, that these are instances of the unbelief of facts, dis- 
tinguished from unbelief of doctrines. It is not so. They 
positively disbelieved the doctrines of the prophets and of Christ 
himself, until they could no longer disbelieve because of the 
evidence of their senses. They did not believe the doctrine 
in relation to his death, until they saw him dead ; nor did they 
believe the doctrine of his resurrection, until they actually saw 
him after he had risen from the dead. And if the Board of 
Superintendants could have adduced to Mr. Van Dyck the 
same degree of evidence from the scriptures, as to the doctrine 
of the eternal generation, and the eternal procession, and that 
Christ died in no sense for the non-elect, as the disciples had 
from their scriptures of the death and resurrection of Christ, 
independent of their ocular demonstration of the facts, they 
would have had no occasion to use any measures to coerce 
him into the belief of their tenets. It is presumed that it will 
be conceded, that the doctrines which the disciples disbelieved, 
were quite as important as those on which Mr. Van Dyck en- 
tertained doubts and difficulties. 

But there is more light to be derived from the scriptures on 
this subject. 

When God commissioned Moses to be his instrument in 
delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage, he 
accompanied the commission by a manifestation of his power, 
in the miracle of the bush on fire, and not consumed ; and by 
a full declaration of his omnipotence, and with the positive 
assurance, of the success of his mission. Exod. chap iii. 
Moses raised doubts, and said the Israelites would not believe 
him, when he should tell them, that he was sent of God. The 
Almighty did not even reprove him for his unbelief, but told 
him to cast the rod, he held in his hand, on the ground. He 
fiid so, and it became a sperpent; which, on beins^ seized by 



j9 



him, at Gou ? s command^ became again a rod. Moses was 
then ordered to put his hand in his bosom, and on pulling it 
out, his hand was leprous as snow ; and having put it in his 
bosom again, at the like command, it was turned again as his 
other flesh. The Lord assured him that when he came to the 
children of Israel, he should have power to perform the same 
miracles, and they would believe in his mission. But the 
doubts of Moses were not removed ; he objected to the pro» 
pi iety of his employment, that he was slow of speech, and that 
the business required a man of eloquence. The Lord assured 
him that he would bestow eloquence upon him when he 
needed it, and to assist the faith of Moses, in his power to do 
it, reminded him that he had made man's mouth. "And now 3 
therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee 
what thou shalt say." And yet Moses did not believe, but 
requested the Lord to send some other messenger. Then the 
anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and he gave him 
Aaron, his brother, to go with him. The brother of Moses 
did not interpose so many difficulties, nor entertain the doubts 
which Moses did. Read the history.— "And the Lord said 
"unto Aaron, go into the wilderness to meet Moses, and he 
"went; and Moses told Aaron all the words of the Lord who 
"had sent him, and all the signs which he had commanded 
"him. And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all 
"the elders of the children of Israel; and Aaron spake ail the 
"words which the Lord had spoken unto Moses, and did the 
"signs in the sight of the people; and the people believed." 
With Aaron there was no hesitation, no doubt. Moses did 
not believe any faster than his reason was convinced by facts : 
and even against facts, held out till God's wrath was kindled. 
His doubts seem to have been in part removed by the bold- 
ness of Aaron, but they revived again in their strength, when 
he found that the children of Israel fared harder through his 
interference: and he said, Exod, v. 22, "Lord, wherefore 
hast thou so evil entreated this people? why is it that thou hast 
sent me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy 
name, he hath done evil to this people; neither hast tho& 
delivered thy people at all" The Lord, according to 



m 

greatness of his forbearance and long surienng, immediately 
declares himself by the name of Jehovah, reassures Moses that 
he would assuredly deliver the children of Israel according to 
his promise, and renews his commission. Exod. ch. vi. Moses 
found the people of Israel reluctant to attend to his message ; 
and when God, verse 1 1, ordered him to go to Pharaoh, and 
command him to let his people go, Moses yet again objected 
from unbelief, saying, " Behold, the children of Israel have 
"not hearkened unto me, how then shall Pharaoh hear me, 
" who am of uncircumcised lips ?" The Lord did not send fire 
down from heaven, to consume his unbelieving servant, nor 
did he declare him wholly unfit for the mission, nor did he 
even rebuke him ; nay, he immediately renewed his com- 
mission. 

Our Board of Superintendants would have revoked the 
commission of Moses, and conferred it on Aaron, as altogether 
the most promising instrument to accomplish the desired 
object. But the wisdom of man is foolishness with God. He 
persisted in sending Moses as the principal, and Aaron was 
deputed to be merely his assistant. And let us now consult the 
history, and see whose faith, of the two, was the most constant; 
whose conduct the most exemplary, and whose services the most 
valuable. Moses became established, rooted, and grounded in 
the faith ; and did not prove to be of the number of those, who 
are ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the 
truth. He became " very meek, above all the men on the 
" face of the earth and not that unreachable, proud, self- 
sufficient man, which a superficial observer of human nature 
would have predicted, from his refusal to assent to a propo- 
sition before he was convinced of its truth. He became emi- 
nent for his wisdom, and for the rectitude of his conduct ; a man 
with whom God talked face to face, whose ways pleased God. 
and who accomplished the object of his mission. But what 
proved to be the character of Aaron ? When Moses tarried on 
Mount Sinai, receiving the law from the mouth of God, the 
people requested Aaron, and that just after his appointment 
to tbejmesthood, to make them gods to go before them. He 
complied with this request, as readily as he did at, first with thr: 



iii 



command of God, to go with Moses on his mission ; and with- 
out hesitation, ordered the people to bring him their golden 
ear-rings, and he made of the gold a molten calf. And 
Aaron built an altar before it, and proclaimed a feast in honour 
of the idol. And when Moses reproved him for his conduct, 
he added to his guilt by prevarication. Exod. xxxii. And it 
was through the prayer of Moses, that he was saved from 
destruction. Numb. ix. 20. His faith in God had not attained 
so firm a hold on his mind as had that of Moses. He seems 
to have easily complied with the humour of his sister, Miriam, 
in speaking reproachfully of Moses, whom God vindicated in 
their presence, and testifies that he was faithful in all God's 
house, contrasting his conduct with that of Aaron and Miriam. 
Numb. xii. While the faith of Moses is commemorated at 
large in the eleventh chapter of the Hebrews, the name of 
Aaron was not deemed worthy, by the inspired apostle, of a 
place among the honoured believers, whose faith is there 
recorded. 

I am well aware, that it will be attempted to avoid the force 
of the scriptural arguments above adduced from the dealings 
of God with Moses, and the dealings of Christ with his disci- 
ples. It will be contended, that those instances are inappli- 
cable to the present times, because the truths of God are now 
better defined than they were in the times of Moses and of 
Christ. It is readily admitted, that, possessing the entire scrip- 
tures, we have a more full revelation of the truth than those 
who had only the Old Testament, or those who depended on 
immediate revelation or tradition. In the progress of filling 
up the sacred records, some truths have been more plainly 
revealed, and God forbid that it should be asserted that any 
one truth has been obscured by the multiplication of the 
sacred writers. But this I will say, that the field of theo- 
logical discussion has thereby become much enlarged. It 
results from the imperfection of the human understanding, 
taken in connexion with his depravity and circumstances, that 
the process of reasoning is not the same in minds of the best 
order ; and that even when they reason from the very same 
premises,, they will oftentimes draw opposite conclusions. 



Free and candid discussion will frequently unite the opinions 
of such as differed widely ; and not unfrequently, the senti» 
rnents of the wisest and best of men will remain at variance^ 
notwithstanding the best chosen means of reconciling them. 
It might have pleased God so to have revealed his will, and so 
to have framed the human mind, and so to have disposed of the 
conditions and circumstances of mankind, as to have ensured 
a perfect unanimity in regard to the truths of the Bible. But 
it has not pleased him so to do. He has so constituted and 
placed us, as to make it our duty to cultivate our faculties in 
the investigation of the truths ot his word ; that we should not 
content ourselves with a single and careless perusal of the 
Bible — but that we make a business of searching the Scriptures 
with diligence, with perseverance, and in the exercise 01 all 
our reasoning powers ; not indeed indulging in vain specula- 
tion, and philosophy falsely so called, but with an honest 
desire to know the truth, and to Jive in the practice of it 
And for man to attempt a reversal of this order in God's 
ceconomy, was impious ; it was Li .pious lor the ancient coun- 
cils — it was impious for the church ot Rome, so to constitute 
her rules of government and discipline, as to ensure an actual 
or seeming unanimity in religious opinions. You seldom hear 
of any ditferences of sentiment among the Roman Catholic 

clergy. They see, to all outward appearance, eye to eye ; . 

and they have actually succeeded in coercing a real agree- 
ment of religious opinions among the body of her clergy, and 
among the body of her laity. But it has been done at the 
expense of both religious freedom and ol truth. 

The argument yet is, that theological truth is now so well 
defined as to admit of being stated with precision, in the form 
of creeds, confessions, or articles of iaith ; and that, when so 
stated, there ought not to be any disbelief, or even doubt, as 
to any proposition contained in such confession, creeds, or 
articles ; and that, therefore, the forbearance of God with the 
doubts of Moses, and the long suffering of Christ with the 
unbelief of his disciples, is now altogether irrelevant. If the 
whole of the above proposition be correct, how happens it, 
that there are so many different creeds in the wotJA— so many 



aifterent creeds in protestant churches 1 Why could not all 
the protestant churches have joined in one creed, instead of 
having them so numerous ? It is no answer to say, the creeds 
of Protestant churches differ but little. The least deviation 
in meaning, of one from another, destroys your principle as 
effectually as though the differences were greater. And admit- 
ting your position, in all its breadth, what does it prove but 
this : That the Bible itself is so plain, as not to admit of any 
difficulties, doubts, or uncertainties in its interpretation. And 
if so, where is the need of creeds ? It is the liability of 
christians to differ in regard to the truths of the Bible, which 
can at all render it necessary to make them plainer, by dress- 
ing them in human language. If then, this liability to differ 
does exist, does it not arise from the nature of the revelation 
and the construction of the human mind, when taken in con- 
nexion with his sinfulness and circumstances ? And if 
men have succeeded in drawing up a system of theological 
propositions, admitting of no differences of opinion or doubts, 
it is clear to my mind, that they either make a new Bible a 
or else thwart the design of God, in so framing the reve- 
lation of his will, as that, whilst man is commanded to search 
the scriptures, he should by the necessity of a frequent and 
constant perusal in order to comprehend them, expose hinv 
self, so to speak, to the fulness of its moral influence, 



64 



SECTION VII. 

Crimes, or mistakes of the Board ; rejecting the Bible as the 
standard of ministerial qualifications, and adopting human 
standards in its stead, and attempting to enforce them on his 
conscience. — Scriptural qualifications stated. — Applied to the 
case in hand. — Pretence that they did decide the case on scrip* 
lure ground, because the standards accord with the Bible, 
refuted, 

" Each had his conscience, each his reason, will, 
Understanding, for himself to search. 
To choose, reject, believe, consider, act : 
And God proclaimed from heavei , and by an oath 
Confirmed, that each should answer for himself." 

The rejection of Mr. Van Dyck from the ministry was not 
probably a pleasant result to every member of the Board. 
Some doubtless took pleasure in it, because, in their party zeal, 
they really believed they were casting a wolf out of the fold. 
Others were entangled in a net of forms, and knew not how 
to shove aside the net, and had not courage to break through 
it. It does not appear that any one of their number ever 
thought of putting the matter upon scriptural grounds, or of 
examining the qualifications of the student on the authority 
of the Bible. Such as were not overheated with zeal for 
orthodoxy in the abstract, could not but have perceived at 
once the abstruseness of the doctrines on which he doubted, 
and that even a denial of those doctrines could in no degree 
have interfered with his usefulness. But it seems not to have 
occurred to them that, professing to sit in judgment in the 
name of the Lord Jesus Christ, on the qualifications of a 
preacher of the gospel, there was higher authority than that 
of the Reformed Dutch Church, or the Synod of Dort, bind- 
ing upon their consciences ; and that a protestant church had 
no more right to prescribe directories of faith distinct from 
the scriptures, than the church of Rome had to ordain as a 



rule of faith, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the infal- 
libility of the Pope, The Board ought to have considered, 
that they were under the control of the word of God, and 
that neither they nor the student had the right to receive and 
embrace doctrines unsupported by the sacred oracles, merely 
because they are established by the power of this world. 
Those who assume the awful responsibility of sitting in judg- 
ment on the admission and rejection of ministers of the gos- 
pel, ought to be well acquainted with the scriptural qualifica- 
tions of ministers : and not the rules of the wisest church on 
earth ; not any consideration whatever, can excuse them for 
admitting to the office of the holy ministry, men whom they 
have reason to believe would have been refused by the Lord 
Jesus Christ or his apostles, were the concerns of the church 
on earth now adminstered by these in person ; or for rejecting 
such as they would have admitted. Did the members of the 
Board act on the recognition of this principle, or did they look 
no further than to the standards of the church ? If that were 
correct in them, why is it not correct for the Roman Catholic 
Church to deny admission to such as deny the doctrine of 
transubstantiation % Then it is easy to prove that two contrary 
propositions are equally true.— -That in the church of Christ, 
which the Lord Jesus Christ declared to be one, it is correct 
*in one Christian community to practise on one principle, and 
in another, to practise on a principle diametrically opposite. 
Whatever is right is certainly sanctioned by the Head of the 
church. Then it is proved, for aught I see, that the Head of 
the church declares two opposite things to be right. Can 
this be so 1 Do you ask me, what other rule of action is 
there for man in his public or private capacity, than his belief 
of what is right and wrong 1 I answer there is no other, for 
he may not act against his conviction. Yet the standard of 
right and wrong is uniform and inflexible, and every man is 
bound to conform to it, at his peril. God has given him the 
means of knowing it, and he must use those means to form a 
correct opinion. The consistory of a church or a classis, a 
particular or a general Synod, can no more protect themselves 
?mder the rules and standards of the church, for what the 

I 



scriptures do not warrant, than a pedagogue can allege the 
rules of his school to justify the hanging of his pupils. The 
question then, whether the Board did right or wrong, is not to 
be decided on the construction of the rules of the church 
only, but on the language and spirit of the Holy Scriptures. 
After you have established the correctness of the standards, 
that is, their agreement with the Bible, then you may justify 
your conduct under the standards, by virtue of their agreement 
with the word of God. But as this word is always at hand, 
ready not only to be compared with the standards, but to be 
applied at once to the case in hand, I really see no reason why 
any reference should be had to the standards at all We 
might with the same propriety on the question of the identity 
of a man, bring into court his likeness, when the man himself 
might be produced ; or on a question of the construction of a 
deed or will, insist on arguing the case upon an abstract, 
made, if you please, by a competent hand, when the original 
paper was in court. Thus far our argument is clear and in- 
controvertible, and to the great standard, the Bible, we must 
go, unless that is so deficient in the light it affords on the sub- 
ject of ministerial qualifications, as to compel us to frame 
human rules to reach the necessities of the case. It would 
appear strange indeed, that on a question of such magnitude, 
we could not find truths in the holy scriptures, sufficient to 
guide us in the exercise of a sound judgment. To make a 
competent minister of the gospel, it is necessary that his cha- 
racter should be adapted to that office ; that he should have 
that positive good character that will commend him to the love 
and confidence of his people, and that he should be exempt 
from those sins, faults, and blemishes, which, notwithstanding 
a character generally good, would mar his usefulness ; that 
he should have a competent knowledge of what things he 
ought to teach, and an acquaintance with the subjects he is 
required to teach ; together with a degree of aptness to com- 
municate information, and enforce his instructions on the 
conscience. On all these matters the scriptures seem to me 
to possess a fulness quite sufficient for every purpose of form- 
es' a correct judgment of the qualifications of a preacher. 



1. As to his character, in a positive sense, it is requireu 
that he should be vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to 
hospitality, patient in ruling well his own house, having his 
children in subjection, having a good report of them that are 
without. 1 Tim. iii. 2 — 7. That he should be an example of 
the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in 
faith, in purity. 1 Tim. iv. 12. A lover of good men, just 
holy, temperate. Titus n 8. See also 1 Cor. iv. 2, 3, 2 Cor. 
iv. 10. As to his character negatively, he must be blameless, 
the husband of one wife, not given to wine, no striker, not 
greedy of filthy lucre, not a brawler, nor covetous, not a no- 
vice. I Tim. iii. 1—7. Not accused of riot, or unruly, not 
self -willed, not soon angry, Titus i. 6, 7i 

2. As to his conduct. He must withdraw himself from 
perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of 
the truth. 1 Tim. vii. 5. He must flee covetousness, follow 
after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness : 
fight the good fight of faith, and lay hold on eternal life. 1 Tim 
vi. 11, 12. He must huld fast the form of sound words 3 (re= 
ferring to what Paul had taught Timothy.) 2 Tim, i. 13. En- 
dure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 2 Tim. ii. 3, 
Study to show himself approved unto God, a workman that 
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, 
ver. 15. Flee youthful lusts, follow after righteousness, faith, 
charity, peace with them that call on the Lord out of a pure 
heart, ver. 22. He must be gentle unto all men, ver. 24. 
Continue in the things he has learned, namely, the Holy Scrip= 
tures. 2 Tim. iii. 14, 15. Watch in all things. 2 Tim. iv. 5. 
Titus i. 9. In all things showing himself a pattern of good 
works, in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity^ 
sound speech that cannot be condemned. Titus ii. 7, 8. After 
the first and second admonition to reject an heretic ; knowing 
that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned 
of himself. Titus iii. 10, 11. 

3. As to what things he must preach, teach, and encourage. 
He must preach Christ crucified. 1 Cor. i. 23. ii. 2. Christ re- 
conciling the world to himself. 2 Cor. v. 19. As ambassadors 
for Christ entreating sinners to be reconciled, % Cor. v, 20, 



Knowing the terrors 01 the Lord, to persuade men, 2 Goiv v 
11. The duty of contributing to benevolent objects. 2 Cor. 
viii. and ix. That love is preferable to knowledge, faith, or 
hope. 1 Gor. xiii. 8. IS. That prayers and thanksgivings be 
made for all men. 1 Tim. ii. 1. To put the brethren in re- 
membrance of what he had learned. 1 Tim. iv. 5. To 
teach servants their duties. 1 Tim. vi. 1, &c The behaviour 
and appearance of women. 1 Tim. ii. 9, &c. Behaviour to 
elders and widows. 1 Tim. v. Duties to magistrates. Titus 
iii. 1, &c. The duties of the rich. 1 Tim. vi. 17, &c. The 
duties of the aged men and widows ; of the young men. Titus 
ii. 6. To rebuke sinners. 1 Tim. v. 20. To testify against 
all ungodliness. 2 Tim. iii. Titus ii. To teach contentment 
and godliness. 1 Tim. vi, 6. To teach men to be ready to 
every good work, to speak evil of no man, and to be gentle and 
meek. Titus iii. 1, 2. 

4. He must be also apt to teach. 1 Tim. iii. 2. Not to 
neglect the gift that is in him—to meditate on these things— 
to take heed unto himself and his doctrine, and continue in 
them. 1 Tim. v. 13 — 16. To be instant in season and out 
of season, to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all long suffer- 
ing and doctrine. To use not carnal, but spiritual weapons. 
2 Cor. x. S, 4. Not with enticing words of man's wisdom, 
that the faith of the hearers may stand not in the wisdom of 
men, hut in the power of God. 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5. To feel 
their sufficiency to be of God. 2 Cor. iii. 5. To have the 
love of Christ constraining them. 2 Cor. v. 14. Not to know 
any man after the flesh. 2 Cor. v. 16. What things are to 
be avoided in their ministry. Dishonesty. 2 Cor. iv. 2. Not 
to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister 
questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith. 1 Tim* 
i. 4. To avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of 
science, falsely so called. 1 Tim. vi. 20. The same caution 
is repeated against profane and vain babblings, for that they 
would increase unto more ungodliness, 2 Tim. ii. 16. Not 
to strive about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the 
hearers. 2* Tim. ii. 14. Foolish and unlearned questions to 
avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. % Tim, ii. 2$ 



69 



That the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentie 
unto all men ; in meekness instructing those that oppose them- 
selves. 2 Tim. ii. 24. Not to give heed to Jewish fables, and 
commandments of men that turn from the truth. Titus i. 14. 
Not to exercise dominion over the faith of others. 2 Cor. ii 24. 

Here surely is a goodly list of the qualifications requisite 
for the ministry of the gospel. Had the Board taken pains to 
place before them, read and consider these qualifications, they 
might have been brought to such a sense of their own deficien- 
cies, as either to make them forget the abstruse points on 
which Mr. Van Dyck doubted, or to show them the propriety 
of forbearing with their young brother, for not being able to 
find these scholastic doctrines in the Bible. They might have 
understood that the preachers of the gospel, to meddle with 
matters so obscurely and doubtfully revealed, (if revealed at 
all,) may come within the prohibition of the Apostle, who 
commands not to strive about words to no profit, but to the 
subverting of the hearers. By fixing their eyes exclusively 
on the standards, and perhaps not recollecting their own prac- 
tical breeches of some of them, and not being aware that 
their faith in the correctness of the standards was more a busU 
ness of credit, than matter of conviction, they found it not so 
difficult to reject a young man, whom the Apostles and the 
Saviour himself would have admitted, as they would have 
done, had they duly weighed the scriptural qualifications of a 
minister of the gospel, and permitted their consciences to put 
to them the question, Are we perfect, and therefore authorized 
to cast the first stone at the young brother ; or, as they would 
have done, had they reflected that they ought to act, not as 
the instruments of vindicating the opinions of a sect or party, 
but for the good of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and as under his inspection, and responsible to him for their 
acts. 

We have heretofore proved, that the Lord Jesus did not 
require of his disciples, as the condition of their exercise of 
the ministi y, that they should believe every truth he taught 
them ; for they believed not what he told them concerning his 
death and resurrection ; but he. notwithstanding, continue 



to 



them in the ministry, and even renewed their commission , 
while the Board reject Mr. Van Dyck from the ministry, not 
for denying any thing that Christ or the sacred writers have 
plainly declared — but for doubting what has been declared by 
philosophizing, speculating men, indulging in scholastic rea- 
soning, and tilling up chasms in their systems of theology, 
which God had left, perhaps on purpose to humble the pride 
of man, and repress his presumption and vain curiosity to 
pry into things too deep for him. 

I must be excused for pressing this subject on the Board, 
as a matter of great moment in the future exercise of their 
offices ; for I fear t; ey will, like other transgressors, summon 
all their energies to resist the force of truth. The futility of 
flying for refuge to the rules of the church, and the necessity? 
for coming to a safe conclusion, of going at once to the origi- 
nal standard, has been plainly proved. Let me now ask you. 
what authority you had from the scriptures, to lav so great a 
stress on abstract matters or faith, — matters ol iaith that 
cannot influence the practice oi preacher or hearer ? Did not 
the inspired writers understand this subject i How little ? 
comparatively, do they say of mere matters of belief] and 
how much of practice 1 Look at the list of qualifications 
again. Examine your Bibles to ascertain whether they have 
been faithfully digested — or rather, throw away the digest, and 
search the scriptures themselves, and learn thence the true 
qualifications of a gospel minister , and then declare wherein 
you found Mr. Van Dyck deficient. On what grounds, do 
you think, St. Paul* or the Lord Jesus Christ, would have 
rejected him] Ii you cannot answer these points to your 
satisfaction, do you think the Head of the Church will sanction 
your rejection of him ? Or, is it a sin laying at your door, 
until acknowledged and repented of] You say of Mr. Van 
Dyek, that one thing he lacked, namely, a belief of the two 
points of doctrine so often mentioned. But where do you 
nnd this to be one of the qualifications of a gospel minister, 
that he should believe these doctrines ? We have seen, or 
may see, by searching the scriptures, what doctrines ougfc 
to ho preached and taught. Are these named among them ? 



71 



The direction to Ezekiel, to declare the whole counsel of Qouj 
had no reference to abstruse doctrines, but only to the exact 
declaration of the message God sent by him to Israel. Be 
this as it may, where do you find your authority for making the 
belief of abstract points of doctrine an indispensable prere- 
quisite 1 The important things to be taught are certainly to 
be found in the New Testament. It will not help your con- 
duct to allege the difficulty of distinguishing between essential 
and unessential points of faith, — for then you must take the 
ground, that Christorthe apostles ought to have rejected from 
the ministry, all who did not believe every thing taught in 
the scriptures of the Old Testament. We have seen that 
the disciples of our Lord did not believe what the Prophets 
taught concerning the death and resurrection of the Messiah. 
He judged of the importance of their believing these doc- 
trines, knowing, at the same time, their other qualifications. 
So it was for the Board to judge of the importance of the 
points of faith, on which Mr. Van Dyck hesitated; to consider 
his time of life ; his other qualifications ; the difference between 
disbelieving and doubting ; and then solemnly to say whether^ 
under all these circumstances, they could plead a warrant 
from the scriptures for rejecting him, and whether they could 
believe that the Saviour himself would have done it. If you 
say you have no discretion in case of disbelief or doubt of any 
of the doctrines which you believe to be taught in the Bible, but 
that in such case you are bound to reject ; or, in other words, 
that you have no dispensing power as to aisy point of doctrine, 
then let me ask you, whether you have any dispensing power 
as to any other qualification ? If so, where do you derive a 
power to dispense with any qualification as to character, con- 
duct, temper, or any thing else distinct from mere matters of 
belief] Should an applicant for the ministry offer himself to you 3 
whom you had reason to believe was not exactly temperate as 
to the quantity or quality of his food ; or not exactly hospitable 5 
rather soon angry, somewhat inclined to covet, or too much 
self-willed, rather impatient, not remarkable for meekness, not 
gentle unto all men, disposed to be unwatchful, or not possess- 
ing that gravity which would be desirable in a minister, or, 



k you please, somewhat given to wine— being deficient su 
any one of these particulars, but possessing every other quali° 
fication, would you reject him ? Then you require a perfect 
man. Well, then, if you can dispense with perfection in cha- 
racter or conduct, cannot you dispense with perfection in faith? 
Where do you find this distinction in the Bible 1 Do you find 
so much more stress laid in the Bible on matters of faith, than 
on matters of christian practice ? If so, in what part of the 
Bible ? Do you not, in fact, find much more stress laid in the 
scriptures, on matters of practice than on matters of faith 1 
St. Paul was surely a theologian, yet you find him insist much 
more on practical qualifications than on those of speculative 
belief. Nay, he insists almost exclusively on the former. So 
the Lord Jesus Christ proceeded on the same principles. Let 
me make an explanation in this place : I do not contend that 
Christ would now, if on earth, license a man to preach, 
who disbelieved his atonement, or resurrection, or ascension. 
The evidence of the truth of these doctrines is so incontro- 
vertible now, as that the denial or doubt of them would prove 
a man unconverted, and as not having received the message 
he is required to deliver, and unfit for a preacher of the gos- 
pel. But the great Head of the church, would, if now on 
earth, act on the same principles in licensing preachers, as he 
did when he commissioned his disciples. He would no more 
require faith in every truth, than he did then. Had a man then 
disputed his Messiahship, he would not have sent him forth to 
preach. So now a denial or doubt of the substance of the 
gospel, which a minister is required to preach, is a disqualifica- 
tion. Did Mr. Van Dyck believe the substance of the gospel.* 
notwithstanding his doubts as to eternal generation and eternal 
procession 1 None but a bigoted partizan will ques ion it. 
How, then, do you justify your rejection of him from the min- 
istry ] You have not acted on the principles of Christ, nor 
of his apostles, nor decided the case on the ground of the 
qualifications required in the Bible. Then you have acted 
independently of the authority of God: and now take refuge to 
the institutions of men — to your doctrine of voluntary associa- 
tion* — to the rules of the church — to the opinions of wis** 



7;* 

men, and that for a succession of ages. What but this way 
the justification on which the scribes, pharisees, and priests 
rested their conduct in the time of the Saviour f l In their con- 
demnation of the Saviour, they disregarded the scriptures of the 
Old Testament, confiding in the received interpretations of the 
Jewish Church ; and Christ charged them with making void 
the law of God by their traditions, teaching for doctrine the 
commandments of men; while under the influence of that 
essential error, they crucified and slew him. 

It is by disregarding the scriptures that errors creep into 
any church. But no church, so departing from the true 
standard, can keep the consciences of its members at ease 
without something which they are led to believe is of equal 
correctness with the Bible. So the Jews got their traditions. 
So the Papists got their doctrine of the infallibility of the church 
and pope ; and so we, in our church, get what we call " our 
most excellent standards" and we keep repeating, in almost 
every report or document, that is presented to, or passes 
through, the hands of Classis, particular Synod, general 
Synod, and Magazine, expressions calculated to impress on 
the minds of laymen and clergy the full belief, that the scrip- 
tures and our standards are convertible terms. This process 
of inculcation, continued for a length of time, tends to the 
keeping of the conscience as quiet in the disobeying, as in the 
obeying of God's word. The inventions of men, being taken 
for granted to accord with the word, are finally adopted as the 
rule of action, and the conscience rests quietly under it. The 
conscience of the papist feels as quiet, while he worships the 
Virgin Mary, as it would, had the first or second command- 
ment never been promulgated. This is the legitimate conse- 
quence of setting too high a value on human standards. You, 
in the same proportion derogate from, nay, you reject, the 
word of God as the only standard of faith and practice. 

I know the members of the Board, to justify themselves for 
adjudging the case of Mr. Van Dyck on the ground of the 
standards, will allege that they have in fact decided it on Scrip- 
ture principles, in as much as the standards perfectly accord 
with the scriptures. This is the very point in dispute They 

K 



74 



say it is proved. Let us hear their arguments, and answer 
thenr. 

In the first place, it is urged that the creed of the church 
has been the same for two hundred years past, and it is pre- 
sumptuous now to call its truth in question. But the creed 
of the Roman Catholic Church has been the same it now is, 
for perhaps one thousand years. If the antiquity of our creed 
proves it true, the much greater antiquity of the Roman creed 
would establish that, if possible, to be much above the standard 
of truth. 

Another argument is, that councils of very learned ministers, 
of different countries, have settled our articles of faith, and 
that the same articles have, from time to time, received the 
sanction of other councils, synods, and assemblies, not only 
in Holland but in this country. This argument also proves 
more for the Roman Catholic church than ours. They have 
had their councils from a period of greater antiquity. The 
Synod of Dort can bear no comparison with the council of 
Trent, as to. the number of the members, or the extent of 
country from which they were collected. The council of 
Trent was composed of men of at least equal learning with 
those of the Synod of Dort, and continued their session much 
longer, namely, for nearly twenty years. 

The third argument is drawn from the very superior wisdom 
of our ancestors ; this is indeed the great argument always 
answering the purpose when all others fail. — It is seriously 
maintained, that the wisdom of the men composing the Synod 
of Dort was so very great, as to afford ample proof of the 
correctness of the articles they originated or revised. If I 
understand what is talked on this subject among us, there is 
claimed, for the men composing that synod, a species of in- 
spiration little inferior in measure, or kind, to that which was 
vouchsafed to the writers of the Holy Scriptures, — a very 
dangerous sentiment, never, it is hoped, to be repeated again, 
From the declarations of some of our ministers, an unin- 
formed layman would be led to suppose that the Synod of 
Port was composed of a race of giants in theology, while the 
present generation of divines are. in the comparison, mere 



dwarls. These high claims to wisdom ought to be examined, 
so as to test them. W ere these men so extremely wise, it is 
surely strange that they did not comprehend what the Saviour 
meant, when He commanded to preach the gospel to every 
creature ; and that, for lack of understanding, they should 
leave the sublime and god-like work of foreign missions to be 
conceived or set in operation by the dwarfish theologians of 
the present day ; and it is equally strange, that their wisdom 
did not lead them to the establishment of Infant schools^ Sab- 
bath schools, and Bible classes ; the melioration of prisons, and 
the blessed charity of instructing the deaf and dumb, with the 
residue of the train of benevolent institutions of modern days ; 
that they should leave it to their remote posterity to discern 
the spirit of anti-christ in religious establishments ; and in the 
enforcement of religious opinions on the consciences of men. 
by the arm of civil authority. It does not argue much in 
favour of the wisdom of the men of Dort, that so great and 
useful a man as Barnevelt should be executed ; and so great 
and good a man as Grotius should be doomed to perpetual 
imprisonment, through means of their measures : nor is it evi- 
dence of their scriptural knowledge, to find them in their acts, 
not only avow their own intolerance, but to supplicate the 
merciful God to move the hearts of the civil rulers to aid them 
in carrying their intolerant principles into practice. — It is now 
conceded to have been unwise in the Synod of Dort to esta- 
blish the observance, besides Sundays, of Christmas, Pauss 2 
and Pinxter, with another day superadded to each, and to urge 
the attempt to prevail with the civil authority to establish the ob- 
servance also of the day of the circumcision and of the ascension. 

There is another ordinance of that memorable Synod, 
affording the most melancholy proof of their lack of wisdom, 
namely,—" That no person professing the Christian religion^ 
" shall undertake to publish, or cause to be published, any 
ec book or writing on a religious subject, composed or trans 
c Mated by himself or another, without the previous inspection 
" and approbation of the ministers of his classis, or of the 
5C particular Synod, or of the professors of theology, with the 
" consent of the classis," This regulation cuts up, root and 
branch, all religious magazines and newspapers, unless the 



76 



same should be conducted by a heathen man or a publican, iof 
a professor of religion is prohibited. The classis or Synod 
could hardly be convened every month, to hear and pass upon 
a monthly magazine, as the debates on a single article might 
consume the space of a month. A weekly or daily news- 
paper would be still more out of the question. Had it not 
been the good fortune of the Dutch church in this country to 
receive into its communion a man from Scotland, who held 
the wisdom of the Synod of Dort in contempt, we never 
would have been blessed with that most extraordinary work 3 
* The Magazine of the Reformed Dutch Church." 

But admitting that these men were as wise as they are 
claimed to have been, (excepting the claim to inspiration, or 
a quasi inspiration, which can never be admitted,) does this 
give them the right to enact laws, to bind the consciences of 
their posterity down to the day of judgment, and to say to 
them, " We have explored the depths of the book of God, 
and have brought them up to your view ; henceforth all fur- 
ther attempts at discovering the mind of God from his word, is 
presumption in those who shall undertake it ?" Does their wis- 
dom authorize them to limit the human mind in its discoveries 
of divine truth, and say to it, " Thus far shalt thou go ; and 
here shall thy efforts be stayed, and thy range limited ?" Who 
gave them the right thus to cramp and enchain the rational 
soul bestowed upon man by his Creator % that they should 
beseech God not to suffer the civil rulers to tolerate any other 
religion than that declared by them % How wise soever they 
may have been in the learning of the schools, they betray in 
this a narrow mindedness, most strange, unscriptural, and 
contemptible, And who could have thought, that for the 
space of two centuries, these pretensions, high sounding as 
they are, could have held enchained, in mental thraldom, not 
only the inhabitants of our mother country, but that their 
slavish and depressing sentiments should have been thus long 
perpetuated in this land of freedom and intelligence - 

I really cannot see but that the same argument, if believed 
and acted upon, must effectually check and prevent all im- 
provement in every science and in every art Has not even? 



V? 



age of the world, from the time of Noah to the present da}> 
had an ancestry, of whose remembrance the present actors 
on the stage of life were proud, on account of their valour, 
wisdom, or other properties 1 Had they attempted to outdo 
their progenitors in any acquirement or branch of knowledge, 
would they not have been guilty of the same disrespect and 
presumption, as we would be to assume the right of going 
beyond the men of the seventeenth century, in the knowledge 
of theological truth % Let us see how this principle would 
have operated, if it had been acquiesced in as tamely as our 
church has acquiesced in the claims of the Synod of Dort 
In the science of law and government, mankind never could 
have progressed beyond the first rude regulations that marked 
the commencement of society ; and the feudal system, under 
which Europe groaned so long, must have for ever remained 
the galling yoke of mankind, because it had been established 
by a wise ancestry. The test act in England could never 
have been repealed ; and ecclesiastical establishments must of 
necessity be perpetuated. There never could have been a 
form of government like ours ; but republics, aristocracies^ 
limited monarchies, or despotisms— the Spanish, Turkish, and 
Chinese governments must remain the same while the world 
endures. The inquisition may never be abolished. The 
science of medicine could never have admitted of improve- 
ment since the days of Escuiapius ; nor the science of meta- 
physics since the days of Aristotle, because these were very 
wise men in their day. While, then, every science is in a 
state of progressive improvement, and every art of life is, so 
to speak, emulating one the other in their race towards per- 
fection, must the mind of man remain stationary in the most 
noble of all the sciences 1 There is nothing in the nature of 
the subject to forbid the hope of advancement in the science 
of theology. I may but hint at what was done by Wickliffe, 
of England, before the reformation, and by our own Edwards 
afterwards, each in his time, and both pioneers in the work 
of reformation and improvement. It is only needful for the 
divines of the present age of the world, to throw off the 
shackles of prejudice, and unprofitable submission to the wis- 
dom of our ancestors, and exert their own faculties, to effect 



perhaps, a greater advancement in the science of theology 
than has yet been effected in any other science. 

Having shown that three of the arguments, adduced to prove 
the correctness of the standards, namely, their antiquity, the 
multitudes of councils and synods which have decreed them, 
and the wisdom of our ancestors, are unsound, there is only 
one remaining, which needs to be answered. It is seldom 
used, although it is the only one that ever ought to be advanced, 
nameiy, that those who now advocate their correctness, have 
carefully examined all the articles, and rind that they fully 
agree with the word of God. Let me then discuss this matter 
with the consciences of the Board, to ascertain whether they 
have made this examination, and made it in the lrame of mind 
requisite to the understanding and reception of the truth — with 
the impartial exercise of their faculties. To determine this, it 
is necessary to inquire, at what time you made the examination. 
If it was before you entered on the study of divinity, with a 
view to the ministry, perhaps your judgment was not then 
sufficiently matured, considering the prejudices of education, 
and partiality for your church, to decide on the niceties of 
theological science. If it was subsequent to your admission 
into the Seminary, then you were bound to study the scrip- 
tures " in the light oi our own standards," at the peril of being 
rejected, and persecuted, as Mr. Van Dyck has been. Did 
you make the examination after your licensure to preach 1 
then you did it at the hazard of being refused ordination, and 
of the revocation of your license. Or was it after your ordi- 
nation to the ministry, that you seriously undertook to make 
this examination ? Had y ou leisure then, among your varied 
and laborious employments as a minister, to prosecute a deli- 
berate inquiry into all the numerous, difficult, disputed points 
of doctrine, contained in the voluminous standards of our 
Church 1 If you had, could you do it impartially % No, 
Before you could be ordained, you was compelled to subscribe 
your name to a formula, wherein you solemnly bound your- 
self, on pain of deposition, to teach and defend every doctrine 
contained in the standards, as long as you should continue in 
the ministry. (See Constitution, p. iQ6») And then your exami- 
nation must have been at the peril of being disgracefully 



79 



deposed from your office, and following- some secular employ- 
ment for a maintenance, or spending your days with your wife 
and children in an almshouse ; not very favourable circum- 
stances, truly, for impartially seeking and embracing the truth. 
All your prejudices and circumstances, from the commence- 
ment, tended to lead your mind to an acquiescence in the 
articles of the Church, whether true or untrue. If you could 
coincide, all would be peace and comfort ; and if you could 
not, you had every reason to apprehend disquiet persecution, 
and pinching want. 

As this is an important part of the argument, let me pursue 
the inquiry a little farther. Whenever your examination was 
made, let me ask, are you satisfied that the doctrine of Christ's 
descent into hell, as taught in the apostles' creed, and recog- 
nised in the Heidelberg Catechism, as an article of our 
undoubted christian faith, does fully agree with the Word of 
God % If so, how comes it that one of your number has pub- 
licly denied this doctrine, in the Magazine of the Reformed 
Dutch Church? See 3d volume, No. I. page 12. And how 
comes it, that this member of the Board has never been even 
called to account for publishing his heretical notions to the 
whole of our community % 2d. Do you believe the definition 
of saving faith, given in the answer to the 2 1st question of the 
Heidelberg Catechism ; and that an assured confidence, of the 
forgiveness of one's sins, is of the essence of it, according to 
the scriptures 1 3d. Have you found to agree with the Bible, 
the doctrine three times repeated in the Athanasian creed, 
(which is acknowledged as belonging to our standards) that 
the man who does not believe every thing asserted in that 
creed, shall, without doubt, perish everlastingly 1 (See Consti- 
tution, p 145, 146, 147.) 4th. Have you examined the 34th 
article in the Confession of Faith, and have you noticed that 
the shedding of Christ's blood, for the infants of believers, is 
there assumed, as the ground of their right to baptism 1 Do 
you believe this to agree with the doctrine of the Holy Scrip- 
tures * If so, do you not see, that it inevitably leads you into 
the scheme of universal salvation, or unlimited atonement ? 
And do you believe the scriptures assert the doctrine, stated 
in the answer to the 37th question of the Heidelberg Cate= 



80 



chism, and in the 6th article, under the second head of the 
canons, in the first of which it is declared, that Christ sus- 
tained the wrath of God, against the sins of all mankind ; and 
in the latter, it is maintained, that it is not owing to any defect 
or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the 
cross, that many who are called by the Gospel, perish in 
unbelief, but that it is wholly their own fault. 5th. Have you 
examined the 36th article of the Confession of Faith, and have 
you noticed the doctrine plainly avowed in it, that God hath 
invested the civil magistracy with the sword; and that their 
office is to prevent, and extirpate, all idolatry and false wor- 
ship, and to destroy the kingdom of antichrist? Do you 
believe this to accord fully with the word of God ? You shall 
not escape this inquiry, by alleging that this article was 
intended to express the duty of a magistrate in Holland, and 
not in this country. 1. Because it is absurd to suppose, that 
the Church in America, should ordain what is the duty of the 
magistrates in Holland, and should bind our ministers to teach 
and defend the doctrine on pain of deposition. 2. Suppose 
the article to be intended to declare the duty of the magistrate 
in Holland, does it agree with the Bible ? Do the scriptures 
make it the duty of the magistrates there, to extirpate idolatry 
and false worship, and destroy the kingdom of antichrist 1 S. 
If it does, does it teach a different doctrine here, and so impose 
contrary duties on magistrates in different countries, in regard 
to the interests of his kingdom ? 

Thus have I particularized to the members of the Board a 
few points of doctrine, which it may be suspected they have 
but partially and slightly looked at, or they would not speak 
with such confidence of the accordance of every point of 
doctrine in our standards with the holy scriptures ; nor assert 
so stoutly the perfect entirety of the standards, so that the sub- 
traction of a word as effectually mars their beauty and excel- 
lence, as the slightest crack destroys the entirety and safety of 
an egg. And thus has been taken away the last and only re- 
maining pretence set up by the Board for deciding the case of 
Mr. Van Dyck upon fallible human standards, instead of ad= 
judging it upon the principles of the unerring word of God, 



Hi 



SECTION via. 

Crimes or errors of the Board. — Perversion of the standards., 
requiring of the student more than they themselves believe or 
perform. — The folly of the notion of the entirety of the stand- 
ards exposed — Neglect of the duty of Christian forbearance. 
Origin of intolerance in protestant churches. — Conclusion. — 
Reasons why the writer does not withdraw from the church.-— 
Jlnswer to the charge of maintaining the same sentiments with 
infidels and heretics, — Exhortation to the Board — to the min- 
isters of the church, «$*c. 

"You say and do not. For you bind heavy burdens and grievous to be 
borne, and lay them on men's shoulders, but you yourselves will not move them 
with one of your fingers." Matt, xxiii. 3, 4. 

There is yet one more view to be taken of the misconduct 
of the Board of Superintendants. Assuming every article in 
the standards of the church to be infallibly correct, they allege 
there was no room for the exercise of discretion, so as to dis- 
pense with the assent of Mr. Van Dyck to every point of doc* 
trine contained in them. As this is a question arising on the 
institutions of men, it will not be irrelevant to look at the prac- 
tice of the presbyterian church, which has substantially the 
same articles with ours. It is stated, as is believed, on good 
authority, that when the Westminster confession and cate- 
chism were received by the presbyterian church in this coun- 
try, and adopted by a synodical act in 1729. it was with the 
proviso, that " in case any minister or candidate shall have any 
scruple with respect to any article or articles of such confess 
sion, he shall at the time of making such declaration, declare 
his scruples to the synod or presbytery, who shall notwith- 
standing admit him to the exercise of the ministry, if the 
synod or presbytery shall judge his scruples not essential or 
necessary in doctrine, worship, or government." The good 
sense of that synod led them to adopt the only course which. 

L 



m 

so long as human creeds are retained in the church, is ai all 
tolerable, so as to maintain uniformity of doctrine in substance, 
and at the same time allow to the minister or candidate his 
undoubted liberty of conscience. Dr. Miller in his lecture 
on creeds and confessions, to avoid the force of the argument 
employed against them, that the enforcement of the articles 
will drive away some of the best men from the church, main- 
tains the same principle with that expressed in the above pro- 
viso, thus insisting that a man need not be driven from the 
presbyterian church, for differences " on minor points." And 
without the least doubt, there have been frequent instances in 
our own classes where applicants have been licensed, notwith- 
standing their dissent from individual articles or points of doc- 
trine, declared at the time, and not deemed essential ; but as 
these declarations of dissent are not matters of record on the 
minutes of classes, it is not in my power to adduce evidence 
of the fact. There must be such a discretionary power, other- 
wise this consequence follows : — a man of the best character, 
understanding, and qualifications, on doubting any one point 
of doctrine, would not only be rejected from our church, but 
might be silenced for ever, as it does not follow that he could 
find any church with which he could agree as nearly as with 
ours ; and if it be right for us to reject him for doubting on 
one point in our standards, it is right in every other church to 
reject him for a single doubt as to their articles. And thus, if 
St. Paul should revisit the earth, he might be disowned and 
rejected by every church in Christendom ; for we are far from 
being assured that he would not find some erroneous or 
doubtful doctrine in every church which has adopted any 
other standard of faith than the Bible itself. And now I 
appeal to the conscience of every member of the Board, 
whether there is not one article in our standards which he 
disbelieves, and whether there are not several on which he 
entertains doubts. If this be not so, it is matter of great 
wonder, (and must be pronounced grossly criminal,) that 
some neglect to teach and defend several of the doctrines 
contained in our articles, contrary to their solemn covenant 
entered into at their ordination ; that many refuse to preach 



cguiariy iron) the Heidelberg catechism, which they are re 
quired to do by the standards and in their calls ; that scarcely 
any conform to the rules of the church in regard to the proper 
subjects of infant baptism ; that all have their several except 
ceptions and reservations in matters of practice. The only 
charitable reason that can be given is, that they differ in matters 
oj faith, otherwise there could not be so many, and such wide 
differences in the practice of our ministers. Yet it is seriously 
contended that such is the entirely of our standards, that when 
a student is examined for licensure, one objection or one doubt 
on an article of faith, must as effectually exclude him from 
the ministry, as if he disbelieved the whole. And one of the 
members of the Board, for the purpose of vindicating their 
conduct in the rejection of Mr. Van Dyck, has written b 
whole pamphlet, (the one under the signature of Q) in which 
the great object is to place this subject on mathematical prin- 
ciples, insisting on the simple axiom, that the whole is made 
up of its parts, and that therefore a subscription to the whole 
is a subscription to all the parts* And this he declares to be 
his whole system ; and thence he argues, that Mr. Van Dyck 
when he declared his willingness to subscribe the standards as 
a whole or as a system, " must have been initiated into the mys= 
teries of the modern morality, to the rejection of old fashioned 
honesty and plain dealing." The ingenious mathematician will 
excuse me for dealing plainly with him. You are an ordained 
minister, and have of course subscribed our standards as a 
whole, including all its parts. Yuu then declared your belief 
in every article or point of doctrine, and made no written or 
parol exception. By your subscription you agreed to teach 
and defend every article and point of doctrine ; for the obliga- 
tion to teach and defend is co-extensive with the declaration 
of belief. Do you in point of fact teach and defend all the 
parts of the confession, catechism, and canons 1 How do 
you teach the 36th article of the confession] (see constitution, 
page 40.) Do you teach that it is the duty of the civil magis- 
trate to employ the sword to extirpate idolatry and false wor- 
ship, and destroy the kingdom of antichrist 1 You may exert 
all your ingenuity to put a different construction on the arti- 



64 

de, but it wiii not avail you : it is too plain to admit erf & 
double sense being put upon it by ali the speculations of your 
mathematical genius. Now I demand of you, whether at the 
time of your subscription you believed it to be the duty of the 
magistrate to extirpate false worship by dint of the sword 1 
It so, have you taught and defended the doctrine, since your 
ordination 'i No, sir; you neither believed the doctrine, when 
you subscribed,- nor have you taught or defended it since 
Now read your sentence from your own mouth. " My sys- 
tem," say you, "stands upon an eternal basis." "Beyond 
this 1 cannot go : any reasonings which go to show that the 
whole oi a thing does not include ali its parts, or that yes partly 
means no, are entirely beyond my comprehension. They 
must be the reasonings of a nigher order of beings, and in the 
systems which belong to such, they may be true. It is a 
matter about which the weaker and more old fashioned breth- 
ren know nothing." Well then, when you affixed your sub- 
scription to the 56th article, you said yes to it with your pen, 
when your judgment said no. When you promised to teach 
it, you intended not to teach it. When you was asked to 
detend the doctrine, your mouth said yes, and your judgment 
and purpose said no. When you said yes to the whole of the 
articles as a system, your yes partly said no. You complain 
of Mr. Van Dyck's modern moranty m professing to agree to 
the standards as a whole, while he doubted as to part. What 
is the ditference between your morality and nisi According 
to your own premises, he was willing to say yes, with the ex- 
ception of certain specified points, on which he openly declared 
his doubts. You said unequivocally yes, without explanation., 
when you disbelieved a part of what you subscribed. When 
you made a solemn promise, without reserve, to teach and 
defend a certain doctrine, you knew neither could be done 
consistently with the truth. Which of you pursued the path 
of honesty and plain dealing % And whose conduct, his or 
yours, will stand the scrutiny of that day, when the secrets of 
all hearts shall be revealed, and when false ethics will no more 
Misd the eyes of mortals ? 



#5 

Let me now address myself to the other, members oi tht 
Board, for I have quite done with " old-fashioned brother," Q, 
Answer me, whether you subscribed the 36th article, 44 ex 
ammo V Then you intended to approve the deposition of 
the Remonstrants, and their banishment ; the imprisonment 
of Grotius, and the execution of Barnevelt ; and all the per- 
secutions consequent on the proceedings of the Synod of 
Dort. ii you subscribed that article ex animo, you are now 
bound by solemn engagements to teach and defend it, and of 
course to inculcate upon our magistrates the " important doc~ 
trine," that they are bound, even irom the president of the 
United States to the justice oi the peace, each to whet his 
sword, and employ ail their power to extirpate the false worship 
of Arians, Soemians, and Anabaptists ; to destroy and suppress 
Armmianism, condemned with so much bitterness in our stand- 
ards ; then the peaceful Quakers too, whose consumption, by 
the combined power oi Brownleeism and Hickaism, goes 
on too slow, will be despatched by a single stroke with the 
sharp sword of the civii magistrate, brought fully into the 
views of the synod oi Dort. 

Or will you aumu that you disbelieve the doctrine contained 
in the 36th article, ana that you have neither taught nor de- 
fended it I I know you will. Then you now declare ex animo 
that when you protested to subscribe the articles ex animo 5 
you assented to what you did not believe, and promised what 
you resolved not to perioral, i his Mr. Van Dyck would not 
do ; and ior his lack oi pliability was rejected. Now let 
me ask: you seriously, whether this your last pretence to jus- 
tify your proceedings, namely, the entirety of the standards, is 
not too i utile to require a lurcher answer. 

It is clear as the sun, that there must be a discretionary dis- 
pensing power, or you run into the greatest absurdities and 
wickedness. If the rules of the church require the mainte- 
nance of the entirety ol the standards in the sense which is 
advocated by the Board, those rules themselves are wrong 5 
inconsistent with the principles of the word of God, and there- 
fore not binding on you as members of the Board, nor can you 
take refuge under them. You find it necessary, as ministere 



SB 



<*f the gospel, to forbear with your parishioners in their igno- 
rance, unbelief, and erroneous opinions ; you find it needful, 
in your intercourse with your fellow-ministers, or sitting in 
the capacity of a member of classis, particular or general 
Synod, to exercise forbearance towards your fellow-ministers, 
for their differences from you in faith and practice. You have 
deemed it right, no doubt, 10 wink at the attack publicly made 
by the editor of the Magazine of the Reformed Dutch Church, 
on one of our articles of faith. You do not feel the neces- 
sity of deposing ministers for not preaching the Heidelberg 
catechism, or not observing the rules of the church in regard 
to infant baptism, or for neglecting to teach and defend the 
36th article, and enforcing its principles on the civil magistrates 
in this country. You are fully aware of the necessity of asking 
the forbearance of your fellow-ministers for your own differ- 
ences in opinion and practice from theirs. You are not 
ignorant of the forbearance of God with the unbelief of his 
servant Moses, and commissioning him, notwithstanding, to 
lead his people from Egyptian oondage to the land of lib- 
erty and promise. You have seen the long suffering of Christ 
with his unbelieving disciples, and his licensing them to preach 
the gospel, notwithstanding their " difficulties on several impor- 
tant doctrines" so that they could not have subscribed to what 
even the Prophets taught. You know the duty of iorbearance 
to be inculcated again and again, by the theological Paul, and 
that not only as to matters 01 practice, but as to matters of faith. 
See Rom. xiv.; and yet, wnen you act as a Board of Super- 
intendants, all these considerations are of no moment— 
the rules of the church must be abused and made the pre- 
text of setting aside the paramount authority of the word of 
God— then you cannot exercise forbearance towards a worthy., 
pious, devoted young brother, who differed from you only 
on a few unessential matters, and on which he is as likely 
to be adjudged correct as you are, at the great day of. 
account, when you shall stand with him before the righteous 
tribunal of the omniscient God,— when every prejudice which 
now blinds the understanding, shall be dissipated— when the 
rules of the church will no longer be pleaded as an excuse for 



87 



setting at nought the word of God — when the spirit of intol- 
erance will no longer be sustained by the multitudes that help 
to keep each other in countenance here below, and to drown 
the cry of persecuted innocence — when the sin and folly of 
attempting to lord it over the consciences of our fellow-men, 
will be most evident — when every slumbering conscience will 
be awakened to the awful responsibility of rejecting from the 
ministry of reconciliation a young man, whom, if you would 
but have given heed to the scriptures of truth, you must 
have known would have been licensed by Him who will 
then be your Judge. Had you hut opened your eyes to 
the light of God's word, you must have seen that Christ 
licensed his disciples to preach, although they disbelieved what 
he knew to be true doctrines ; and you would not have rejected 
your student for doubting doctrines which you do not know to 
be true, and which you believed, not so much on your own 
conviction, as on the authority of the church : you would 
have seen that Christ licensed his disciples, notwithstanding 
their disbelief of what he positively declared to be true ; and 
you would not have cut off your young brother for doubting 
propositions which, if declared at all, are " not explicitly and 
evidently revealed;" you would have seen that the disciples had 
no reason for their unbelief, except their inveterate prejudices 
and the perverseness of human depravity, while your student 
had, on his side, not merely the doubts, but the positive opin- 
ions of some of the best men in the church of God. 

The history of this persecution, and the discussion of the 
reasons upon which it is attempted to be justified, have now 
been brought to a close. And while we are constrained to 
express unfeigned sorrow that such things should be in this 
protestant church, and in this land of freedom, it may be more 
useful to trace the origin of the intolerant spirit which has 
originated the persecution and carried it into effect. 

The intolerance existing in the church arises from setting 
too high a value on doctrinal, compared with practical, know- 
ledge. For the last two hundred years, the great concern 
has been to detect and root out heterodox opinions, and esta- 
blish orthodoxy in matters of speculative faith. To effect this 



88 



object, it was deemed necessary to draw up creeds and con- 
fessions of faith, professedly extracted from the word of God f 
but clothed in such language as, to all but the denomination 
that drew them up, conveyed a meaning different from that 
expressed in the holy Scriptures. By the establishment of a 
particular sect in anv country, through the power of the civil 
government, unanimity to a great degree was ensured ; and 
by the consciousness of numbers embracing the same opinions, 
the dominant party became too confident of the correctness 
of their religious sentiments, and intolerant of the opinions of 
their opponents. The least deviation from the acknowledged 
standards, by members of their own church, was dreaded as 
the precursor of open apostacy to the opposite faith ; and 
thus, unessential, nay, trifling, differences have been magnified 
into matters of great importance. Almost the only means 
employed by the church for promoting the interests of Christ's 
kingdom, have been to maintain, in her congregations, a cor- 
rect theoretical faith. This secured, and it was believed that 
every formidable evil was shut out. Hence the great inquiry 
in regard to the qualifications of a minister has been, is he 
orthodox in his creed ? The great importance attached to 
theoretical points of doctrine has diverted the exertions of 
the Christian world from their proper direction. The princi- 
ples of the Reformation, if they had only been persevered in 
and carried on, would, before this time, have dislodged Satan 
from the usurped empire of the world. The gospel would 
long since have been preached to every creature, instead of 
the world's remaining to this day, as to the greatest portion 
of it, in the darkness of Paganism. The benevolent and glo~ 
rious charities now in their infancy, would have attained to a 
mature and blessed manhood ; and fields of moral enterprise, 
not yet explored, would now have been occupied and suc- 
cessfully cultivated. How much more noble, how far exalted 
above her present station in the world, would have been the 
Church of God at this day, if her professed friends had not 
directed so much of their energies to unprofitable speculation 
and controversy f 



80 



In coming to a conclusion of my remarks, it may not be 
amiss to answer a question, which has doubtless occurred to 
some of my readers; namely: If there are such evils in the 
Church of my fathers, why do I still maintain my connexion 
with it ? It is scarcely possible, at this day, to point out the 
least error in theory or practice in the Church, but that person 
must hear the remark, "Let those who do not like our doc- 
trines and practices, go to some other church, which they love 
better, for we compel no man to remain with us." This is 
generally the language of passion ; but it is also the language 
of ignorance. Were it my desire to retire from the Church 
in which I have been born, baptized, and enjoyed many privU 
leges, it is not permitted me, unless on the previous commission 
of some crime, which would subject me to, and effect my 
excommunication. It has been solemnly decided, by the 
general Synod, in the year 1824, "That it is an established 
principle in church government, that the relation existing 
between the church and its members, can be dissolved only 
by death, dismission, or an act of discipline." The dismission 
would not be granted me, did I request it on the ground of the 
evils existing in the church, for I should be immediately brought 
under a course of discipline for the avowal. This is my first 
answer. The next is, that it is not my wish to withdraw* 
There is no church, within my knowledge, which is exempt 
from error in doctrine or practice ; that is, according to the 
best of my own judgment. Another answer is, that the evils 
in my own church may possibly be corrected ; and even if 
they should not, they are not such as to prevent me, with the 
exercise of Christian forbearance, from deriving more profit to 
myself and my children by my continuance in the church, than 
by withdrawing from it. Lastly, If there be a single talent 
committed to me, by my Master, whom I, although a layman,, 
profess to serve, the prospect of my employing it to some good 
purpose, is better, by my remaining in the church of my 
fathers, than by retiring, or betaking myself to another, But 
has it come to this, that as soon as a man discovers something 
wrong in his church, he is not only at liberty 3 but in dutj 
bound to forsake it ? Then it is also the duty of the patriot, 

M 



w 

who perceives evidence of misrule in the government oi ms 
country, instead of using his endeavours to reform what ie 
amiss, to forsake the land of his birth, and transfer his alle- 
giance to a country of strangers. 

There is another misconception which it may be useful to 
correct. In maintaining the doctrines of liberty of conscienc e, 
and the sufficiency of the Bible as the standard of faith and 
practice, 1 shall be classed with inhdels, unitarians, and oil £t 
heretics, who severally advocate the one or the other of the 
same doctrines. If the reproach of this charge were the 
whole extent of the evil, it would not be worth my concern, or 
that of the reader. The danger is, that it will be employed as 
a mean to close the ears of some against the hearing of the 
truth, and the understandings of others against its reception. 
This would be both unfair, and prejudicial to the cause of 
correct principles. If errorests do advance some truths, that 
surely does not metamorphose them into untruths. The cor- 
rectness, or incorrectness of religious sentiments, must be 
tested, not by inquiring who are the men that advocate them, 
but by comparing them with the unerring word of God, 
Besides, if the enemies of religion make use of true doctrines 
to pervert them to the purpose of undermining the Christian 
faith, must the friends of religion, for that reason, desist irom 
maintaining the same truths, when they may use them for the 
establishment of the faith ? It is impossible to calculate the 
loss which has been sustained by the church, in adopting the 
contrary course, and thus being caught in the very snare of the 
enemy. When Paine published his " Age of Reason," some 
well meaning divines undertook to answer him, by decrying 
human reason, instead of refuting his sophisms, by making use 
of their reason ; a most unfortunate mistake, truly, and one 
which gave the enemy a decided advantage. And now, when 
infidels and unitarians are loud in their claims for the liberty of 
conscience, and the latter preach up liberality and christian 
forbearance, and the superiority of the Biole over creeds of 
human composition, it is supposed that- we must either be 
silent, or take the opposite side. It is surely not the time, token 
error abounds* to shut our ears againsi the truth. 



91 



The members 01 the Board, I exhort to repent and seek for. 
^veness, for having, under the colour of zeal for the truth, 
permitted themselves to be influenced by the spirit of party; 
for refusing to exercise forbearance towards their young 
brother, as became them under a sense of their own short 
comings, and the precepts of God's holy word ; for having, 
under the colour of ecclesiastical authority, endeavoured to 
coerce a student of divinity to subscribe to human opinions, 
which, in his conscience, he could not see to accord with the 
scriptures of truth ; and on his refusal, following him with 
furious persecution to the utmost extent of their power ; for 
having preferred the institutions of men to the ordinances of 
God ; for exalting human standards above the infallible word 
of God ; for having rejected from the ministry of the Gospel, 
in our church, a young man who would have been admitted 
by the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles ; and for having 
exerted all their power, industry, and skill, to prevent him from 
preaching the Gospel in any church of God. 

To the ministers of the Gospel in the church of my fathers, 
permit me, as one who thinks he desires the prosperity of that 
church, to recommend the cultivation and promotion of the 
spirit of peace and forbearance. In preaching and inculcating 
the truths of the Bible, give to matters of practice, and mat- 
ters of mere theoretical belief, the weight which their relative 
importance demands, as inculcated in the scriptures. Let me 
beseech you, not to encourage the boastings that have been so 
long heard, of the superiority of our churches, of our standards, 
of our congregations over all others. Instead of thus foster- 
ing the pride, rather inculcate humility on your people, as a 
most needful, most ornamental, most valuable grace. Give 
no countenance to the elevation of human standards of truth, 
but exalt the word of God as the only and the sufficient stand- 
ard. Promote the spirit of liberality. Convince the world 
that it is a calumny, that in the sheepfold of Christ it is need- 
ful to raise high and make strong the walls of separation, lest 
the sheep bite, tear, and devour one another. Permit me to 
entreat you, to use your utmost endeavours to establish infant 
schools wherever they can be supported ; to establish sabbatb- 



92 



schools and Bible classes wherever ten learners may be brought 
together ; to encourage every liberal and pious object, not 
upon sectarian principles, but from a love to the kingdom of 
Christ ; to be constantly devising liberal things, and enlist the 
energies of your people to execute them. Let me, in the ut- 
most earnestness of my soul, beseech you, to insist more with 
your hearers on the prayerful reading and searching of the holy 
scriptures ; and finally, strive to promote the practice of god- 
liness in all things. And the use of these means may be found, 
yea they will be found, to be the best means for ensuring unani- 
mity of religious opinions, and uniformity of christian practice 
in things essential, and the prevalence of the spirit of forbear- 
ance and christian love in regard to matters of minor im- 
portance. 

Of the members of our church, I must be permitted to 
Inquire, whether the facts and reasons detailed in the foregoing 
pages do not help to solve the question frequently asked, why 
our theological school, maintained at so great an expense, has 
aot flourished according to the desires and hopes of its sup- 
porters I why it has cost so much, and, of late years, -effected 
comparatively so little ? why our missions have not prospered 
in proportion to the funds employed ? Can the school pros- 
per when it is based on human standards, rather than on the 
unerring word of God 1 When the students are trained with 
the view of preparing them to promote sect and party, instead 
of being directed to have a single eye to the building up of 
Christ's kingdom? When their faith is attempted to be coerced s 
or made to rest more on the authority of the church, than on 
their own convictions of the meaning of the Scriptures ? Let 
us not be cheated out of our reason, by being told, that all 
other schools of theology do the same. If that be true, they 
all do wrong. Our present business is with our own school. 
Whatever is amiss in that ought to be reformed. Uncommon 
exertions made on sectarian principles to increase the number 
of students, will not ensure reformation in the management 
of the school ; nay, the greater the success in the increase of 
numbers, the more surely will bigotry attribute to her princi- 
ples and course of conduct, the attainment of this success 



93 



and the more will she be strengthened in her former course ; 
and in the same proportion will the energies of the church be 
diverted from the promotion of a Christian spirit, and the 
practice of godliness. How is a reformation to be effected? 
Public sentiment may do it; and if our ministers dare not 
expose themselves to the reproach and the danger, the duty de- 
volves on us, as lay members of the church, to give the tone 
to public sentiment. Let me entreat you to reflect on these 
subjects ; and when your opinions are matured, do not shrink 
from declaring them, nor from acting according to your con» 
victions. 

Upon Christians of all denominations, let me urge the 
necessity of an union of all the friends of the Bible, to combine 
their exertions in restoring that precious volume to the esti- 
mation in which it ought to be held — of its supremacy, its 
infallibility, and its sufficiency, as the rule of faith and prac- 
tice ; and the necessity of united exertions to remove out of 
the way every false standard and false dependence, and every 
thing calculated to seduce men to adopt any other rule of 
judgment or conduct, than what is authorized in the holy word 
4f God. 



APPENDIX. 



DOCUMENT MARKED A. 

My views as to certain points in theology are the following : 
I . The eternal generation of the Son of God, and the eternal 
procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, which 
are asserted Heid. Cat. Q. 33, and Confes. of Faith, articles 10th 
and 13th. 

Neither of these doctrines do I deny ; yet I cannot say that, 
from rational conviction, I believe either that Jesus Christ is the 
natural Son of God, or that the procession of the Holy Spirit is 
either eternal or natural. Want of proof rather than opposite 
proof, is the reason why I hesitate to receive them. While there- 
fore I believe from Prov. viii. 23, 24, &c that both as to exist- 
ence and mediatorship, Jesus Christ is eternal, I cannot venture 
to determine, but would rather be silent as to them, whether the 
terms Son and procession denote a natural or official relation. 

2. The doctrines of imputation and substitution, I believe. 

3. I adopt the distinction of natural and moral inability which 
is made by many divines, as essential to a correct explanation of 
man's inability to perform his duty ; but by it I do not mean that 
man is not corrupt, which is the sense in which Pelagians say 
that man can perform his duty. Nor do I maintain that man 
ever does perform his duty without the assistance of divine grace ; 
but with Hopkinsians, I believe in the necessity of that grace, as 
being an invariable antecedent cause of such obedience. Man 
can obey God's commands, when disposed to their obedience ; 
but because of the depravity of his heart he never is so disposed, 
until the Holy Spirit imparts his grace. I can subscribe on this 
point the 8th and 9th answers in the catechism, if the 9th be 
explainedl>y the 8th. 

4. As to the doctrine of the atonement : I view the gospel offer 
of salvation on the terms of repentance of sin, and faith in the 
Lord Jesus Christ, as universal ; and since on account of the de- 
nunciations of divine justice, such an offer could be made to no 
one without an atonement, so I conceive that that offer cannot be 
be made to every one, on account of the requirements of the same 
divine justice, without an atonement for all. When I use the word 
atonement, I mean by it here, the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
Now I do not say that divine justice is absolutely satisfied by 



Christ's dying tor them, so that it ceases to demand punishment 
from the impenitent and unbelieving non-elect ; indeed in that 
sense it is not satisfied even in regard to the impenitent and unbe- 
lieving elect, so long as they continue so ; but 1 mean to say that 
divine justice is so affected (I know not how) by his death in their 
behalf, that the offer of salvation can be made to them consistently 
with it, which, had not Christ died for them, could not. I wish I 
could be more explicit, but J cannot : beyond this my views are 
not clear, i know not whether I should differ from those who main- 
tain the sufficiency of the atonement. At any rate the above is the 
only sense in my view in which the atonement can be actually 
sufficient, if we would avoid universal salvation. Before I leave 
this head I would state, that in particular redemption I firmly 
believe, that through Christ's death the elect, and the elect alone, 
obtain justification ; and that if the word atonement itself be under- 
stood as including justification, or as inseparably preceding it : 
in short, if any thing more than the rendering it consistent with 
God's perfections, to save the sinner on his repentance and faith, 
be understood by it, I reject the universality of the atonement, 
On no other doctrines, which separate churches or bodies, are my 
views different either from the acknowledged standards or ministers 
of our church. 

(Signed) L. B. VAN DYCK. 

As I have explained my meaning as to Christ's having died for 
all, I can subscribe the answer to the 37th Q. of the Heidelburgh 
Catechism. 



DOCUMENT MARKED B. 

1. As to the doctrines of the eternal generation of the Son, and 
procession of the Holy Ghost, I am undecided. I do not disbe- 
lieve them, and yet I cannot say that I am fully convinced of their 
truth. I believe, however, that the Father, and the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost are divine ; and that between the persons designated 
by those names, there is a distinction, and that it is not merely 
nominal but real ; but what the nature of that distinction is, in 
other words in what it consists, and whether the terms Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost, do or do not point to the nature of that 
distinction, I do not know. 

2. The doctrines of imputation and substitution, I believe. 

3 I agree with those who distinguish inabiiity in general, into 
natural and moral, and believe that of the sinner to perform his 
duty to be the latter. 

4. I am not settled on the subject of the atonement, but hesi- 
tate beiween the views of Hopkinsian and Calvimstic divines. 

L, B VAN DYCK. 

New-Brunswick July 7$, i%27o 



Extract from the Minutes of the Board of Superintendants of 
the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Dutch Church, at theif 
meeting in New-Brunswick, July 1 1th, 1827. 

" The following report was received from the Rev. Professor 
Milledoler, accompanied with the documents marked A. and B. 

" Mr. Leonard B. Van Dyck, of the senior class, presented to 
me a paper on the 29th of June, purporting to contain some doc- 
trines on which his views differ from the acknowledged standards 
and ministers of our church : a copy of this marked A. is sub- 
joined. Apprehending that this document would be submitted to 
the Board of Supenntendants, Mr. Van Dyck called upon me on 
the 5th instant, to request the original, that he might examine and 
remodify it. I gave it him under the full impression of a loan, and 
that it would certainly be restored to me. Mr. Van Dyck, however, 
has since declined' to return it, and has presented in its place a 
substitute under date of July 7th, marked B. Having understood 
that this young gentleman contemplates leaving New-Brunswick 
without submitting to examination, and being desirous to avoid all 
misapprehension, and to put the Board in possession of at least 
some of the facts which have transpired in his case, I have deemed 
it my duty to present both documents to the Board. 
All which is respectfully submitted. 

PH. MILLEDOLER, 

New- Brunswick, July llth, 1827. 

41 Resolved, That so much of the report of the Professor of 
didactic and polemic theology, as relates to the case of Mr. Van 
Dyck, be referred to a special committee, consisting of the Rev 
Messrs. C. D. Westbrook, N. I. Marselus, and P. Labagh. 

" The committee on the case of Mr. Van Dyck reported, and 
their report was adopted, and is as follows : 

" The committee on the case of the student, L. B. Van Dyck 5 
report— 

" That they have conferred witli Professor Milledoler, and the 
student, L. B. Van Dyck, and have learned with pleasure that the 
deportment of the young man has been, throughout his theolo- 
gical course, respectful and exemplary ; that the young man con- 
ducted himself before the committee with decorum, with candour, 
and with affection. That although upon the explanation of the 
standards of our church, given by the committee on the subject of 
his doubts, he was in some measure relieved, so far as to be able 
to retract some expressions in his written statements ; yet he re- 
tained his doubts on the eternal generation of the Son, and of the 
eternal procession of the Spirit : and was not sufficiently explicit 
on the atonement : that he wishes to be admitted to his exami- 
nation with his class, and submit to the investigation and decision 
of the Board of Superintendant?, 



97 



\our committee are aware of the caution and discretion whicii 
should be exercised in the reception of candidates for the ministry.; 
especially when the developement of facts suggest them. Yet upon 
due consideration of the modest and affectionate conduct of their 
young brother, your committee can see no weighty reason why 
he should not be admitted to his examination, and why the whole 
subject should not be left to the discretion of the Board, 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

By Order. C, D. WESTBROOK, Chairman:' 

The Board then proceeded to the examination of the different 
classes. The examination being finished, the following resolution 
was passed s 

" Resolved, That Mr. Van Dyck be called before this Board, 
and asked whether he has any remarks or explanations to make on 
the papers which contain his views and difficulties on certain points 
of doctrine, as maintained by the Reformed Dutch Church, and 
whether he is prepared to subscribe, ex animo, the standards of the 
church. 

" Mr. Van Dyck appeared before the Board, and stated that the 
last paper handed in by him to Dr. Milledoler, expressed fully his 
views. The xth and xith articles of the Confession of Faith, the 
xiiith Lord's day of the Heidelberg Catechism, and the viiith article 
of the second head of doctrine, were read to him, and the question 
was asked whether he could subscribe these articles of faith. To 
which he answered that he could not receive the whole of the xth 
and xith articles of the Confession of Faith, and the xiiith Lord's 
day of the catechism, but that he could subscribe the viiith article 
of the second head of doctrine. He moreover stated that the 
inability of man was only moral, and that he applied the corruption 
of human nature to the understanding and affections, as well as to 
the will. 

"Resolved, That the Rev. Messrs. S. A. Van Vranken, C. C. 
Cuyler, and B. C. Taylor, be a committee to draft a minute on 
the case of Mr. L. B. Van Dyck. 

The committee reported the following resolutions, which were 
adopted : 

1. Whereas Mr. L. B. Van Dyck labours on several impor- 
tant doctrines, so that he cannot subscribe to the entire standards 
of the church : Therefore, Resolved, That he cannot be recom- 
mended by this Board to the Professors for their certificates — but 

2. Whereas he has given a high degree of satisfaction to the 
Board, by the praiseworthy candour manifested on the topics on 
which his mind is not settled, and the attention paid to his 
studies :' And whereas it is regarded as exceedingly desirable, thai 
the way should be open for his admission into the ministry of oik 
churchy—therefore, 

N 



9a 



'• Resolved^ That he be advised to continue in the institution 
and pay a particular attention to the subjects alluded to. 

"3. Resolved, That should Mr. Van Dyck's mind become 
settled on the said subjects, and he desire to be heard again, that in 
that case the president of the Board be authorized to call a special 
meeting for the purpose of attending to his case. 

S. A. VAN VRANKEN, Chairman. 

" Resolved, That the stated clerk furnish Mr. Van Dyck with a 
copy of the above resolutions." 

An extra meeting of the Board of Superintendants was held 
in the city of New- York, on Thursday, November 1st, 1827. 

" The president stated, that he had called the meeting in ac- 
cordance with the request contained in the following letter from 
three members of the Board. 

New York, September 2dth, 1827, 
Rev. James V. C. Romeyn, President of the Board of Super- 
intendants of the Theological Seminary. 

" Whereas at the last meeting of the Board of Superintendants, 
the student, Leonard B. Van Dyck, was, upon examination, declared 
to be not entitled to a professoral certificate for licensure : and. 
whereas, the said board did resolve, that as soon as the said L. B. 
Van Dyck could subscribe the articles of faith, and the canons of 
the Reformed Dutch Church, the Board woul meet, in special 
session, and admit him to be entitled to the professoral certificate : 
and whereas, the said L. B. Van Dyck, has not only declared him- 
self ready to subscribe said articles, but has offered himself to a 
presbytery of the Presbyterian church, and has been by them 
received as a licentiate : Therefore we, the subscribers, request 
you to call a meeting of the said board, to convene in the city of 
New- York, (if this be admissible,) or if not, in New-Brunswick, 
at such a time as you may judge proper, immediately after the 
expiration of the time in which notices of this kind must be given ? 
to take into consideration the case of the said Leonard B. Van 
Dyck, and all such subjects as are connected with it. 

CORNELIUS D. WESTBROOK. 
JACOB BRODHEAD, 
WILLIAM C. BROWNLEE.' 5 

The minutes of the Board on the case of Mr. Van Dyck, at 
their session in New-Brunswick were read. 

The subject was discussed at considerable length, when it was, 
©n motion, Resolved, That the consideration of the whole case 
"before the Board, be referred to a special committee, consisting of 



99 



the Rev. Messrs. Dr. Brownlee, 0. D. Westbrook, S; A. Van 
Vranken, and P. Labagh. 

The stated clerk laid before the Board a written request, which 
he had received from Mr. L. B. Van Dyck, for an attested copy of 
all the proceedings of the Board in his case : Whereupon it was 
Resolved, That his request be complied with. 

The committee on the case of Mr. L. B. Van Dyck, reported, 
and their report was amended, adopted, and is as follows : 

41 The committee to whom was referred the case of Mr. L. B. 
Van Dyck, recommend to the Board, the adoption of the following 
resolutions : 

44 Resolved, That the student, Mr. Leonard B. Van Dyck, is still 
considered by this Board as under their superintendance and care, 
he never having been dismissed by certificate ; but, on the con- 
trary, having been advised by this Board to remain in the Theo- 
logical Seminary, until his mind should be finally settled and made 
correct, on those different points on which he has difficulties. 

2. Resolved, That Mr. Van Dyck, having, without a regular dis- 
mission, and contrary to the advice and instructions of this Board, 
presented himself before the Presbytery of Columbia, and having 
taken license to preach the gospel, has acted, in a manner, disor- 
derly and unchristianlike. 

3. Resolved, That the Presbytery of Columbia, in licensing 
Mr. Van Dyck, without any certificate of dismission and recom- 
mendation, from the Superintendants of the Theological Seminary 
of the Reformed Dutch Church, has violated the second and fifth 
articles of correspondence between the Reformed Dutch Church 
and the Presbyterian Church : Therefore, 

4. Resolved, That this Board deem it highly improper and 
unsafe that Mr. Van Dyck be allowed to officiate in any of our 
churches. 

5. Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to the 
Rev. the Moderator of the Presbytery of Columbia. 

6. Resolved, That measures be taken by this Board, to bring 
this business before the General Synod of the Reformed Dutch 
Church, and before the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church, unless the Presbytery of Columbia rescind their proceed- 
ings in the case of Mr. Van Dyck, and within three months duly 
advise the President of this Board that they have so done. 

7. Resolved, That these resolutions be made known in a circular 
address to our churches. 

44 All which is respectfully submitted, 

44 W. C. BROWNLEE, Chairman. 
66 Resolved, That the President and Secretary of this Board be 
authorized to draw up and issue the circular above referred to, 
54 Resolved. That the stated Clerk be authorized *o prepare a 



100 



copy of the whole proceedings of this meeting, to be laid before 
the General Synod. 

" A true extract from the Minutes of the Board of Superintend 
dants of the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Dutch Church 

« Attest. THOMAS M. STRONG. Stated Clerk." 



Extract from the Minutes of an extra Syond of the Reformed 
Dutch Church, held in the city of Albany, on the 23d day of 
April, 1828. 

u The Committee on the case of Mr. Leonard B. Van Dyck, 
report the following recitals and resolutions for the adoption of the 
General Synod. 

" Whereas, the Board of Superintendants of the Theological 
School of the Reformed Dutch Church is, according to the plan of 
that institution, subject to the supervision of the General Synod, 
and therefore accountable to Synod for all its measures, it behooves 
the Board, in every case of doubt or difficulty, to report the same 
to the General Synod, for advice and ultimate decision : and 
whereas it appears from the Report of the Board of Superinten- 
dants to this Synod, that, at the examination of the students in the 
aforesaid school, who had completed their theological course of 
study, Mr. Leonard B. Van Dyck, one of the said students, was 
regularly examined, and exhibited satisfactory evidence that his 
attainments in theological knowledge entitled him to a professoral 
certificate, to be admitted to an examination before the classis, to 
which he was attached for licensure ; but that he entertained doubts 
relative to certain standing articles of faith of the Reformed Dutch 
Church, by reason whereof, the said Board of Superintendants* con- 
sidered it their duty to withhold from him the said professoral certifi- 
cate, until his said doubts should be removed ; and to that end advised 
him to continue in the institution, and pay particular attention to 
the points upon which he doubted, and accompanying that advice 
by a resolution, that should Mr. Van Dyck's mind become settled 
upon the said points, the President of the said Board was author- 
ized upon his request, to call a special meeting of the Board, to 
attend to his case, as by reference to so much of the said report, 
as relates to Mr. Van Dyck's doubts, and the proceedings of the 
said Board relative thereto, (a copy whereof is hereto annexed,) 
may more fully appear : Therefore, Resolved* That this Synod 
approve the course pursued by the said Board of Superintendants, 
in withholding the professoral certificate from Mr. Van Dyck until 
his aforesaid doubts should be removed, or this Synod should have 
an opportunity to pass finally upon his case. 

-And whereas it further appears, bv the report of the said 



101 



Superintendants, that Mr. Van Dyck did not conform to their ad- 
vice, so as aforesaid given to him, but left the said school, and 
attached himself to the Presbytery of Columbia, in connexion with 
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church ; and that the 
said Presbytery admitted him to an examination for licensure in 
the Presbyterian Church, and afterwards licensed him to preach the 
gospel as a licentiate of the said Church : Therefore, Resolved, 
That certified copies of this and the preceding resolutions* with 
their recitals, be transmitted to the General Assembly of the Pres- 
byterian Church for consideration, whether the aforesaid proceed- 
ings of the Presbytery of Columbia are conformable to the spirit 
and true intent of the articles of correspondence entered into by 
the General Assembly and this Synod, and to adopt such measures 
in relation thereto, as the General Assembly shall deem proper in 
view of the circumstances of the case. 

" And whereas it further appears by the aforesaid report, that the 
Board of Superintendants,at an extra meeting held in November last, 
passed certain resolutions, and authorized a circular to be addressed 
to the Dutch Churches, in connexion with this Synod, arraigning the 
conduct of the Presbytery of Columbia, and menacing an appeal to 
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church unless the Presby- 
tery of Columbia should within three months rescind their proceed- 
ings in the case of Mr. Van Dyck, and advise the President of the 
said Board of Superintendants thereof, (and admonishing the Dutch 
Churches not to allow Mr. Van Dyck to officiate in them ?) and 
whereas, the said Board of Superintendants, in their last mentioned 
resolutions and proceedings, have assumed powers which do not 
appertain to it, and in relation to matters which fall within the 
legitimate province of this Synod — -Therefore Resolved, That this 
Synod feels constrained, by a just regard to its constitutional duty, 
as the supreme ecclesiastical judicatory of the Reformed Dutch 
Church, to disavow the authority so assumed by the said Board of 
Superintendants, and to express pointedly the disapprobation of this 
Synod of the last mentioned resolutions and proceedings of the 
Board of Superintendants. 

H. OSTRANDER, Chairman. 
" Resolved, That a certified copy of the proceedings of this 
Synod, in the case of Mr. Van Dyck, be transmitted to the Board 
of Superintendants." 



Extract from the Minutes of the General Assembly of the Pres- 
byterian Church, held in May, 1828. 

The Committee to whom was committed the Communication 
from the Reformed Dutch Synod, in relation to the proceedings of 



102 



the Presbytery of Columbia, in the case of Leonard B. Van Dyck ¥ 
made a report, which being read and amended, was adopted, and is 
as follows, viz : — That they have given considerable attention to 
the subject committed to them, and find the facts to be as follows, 
viz : That Leonard B. Van Dyck was a student of the Theological 
school of the Reformed Dutch Church,and attached to a church under 
the care of the classis of Albany, belonging to the said church ; that 
because of doubts entertained by him relative to certain standing ar- 
ticles of faith of the Reformed Dutch Church, he was refused a profes- 
soral certificate, until his doubts on the points in question should be 
removed ; and for that purpose he was advised to continue in the insti- 
tution, and pay particular attention to the points on which he doubted ; 
that with this advice he did not comply, but offered himself to the 
Presbytery of Columbia, as a candidate for licensure, and by said 
presbytery was received and licensed. Such are the facts in the 
case ; and in these facts your committee are unable to discover 
any thing, by which the articles of correspondence between this 
body and an highly respectable sister church have been violated. 
They are however of the opinion, that as the change of church con- 
nexion is a serious matter, calculated to affect the peace of the 
body left, and therefore not to be needlessly encouraged, that the 
Presbytery of Columbia did not exercise due deliberation in the 
reception and licensure of Mr. Van Dyck, and that they would have 
acted with more propriety, if instead of receiving information from 
a member of the classis of Albany, and acting upon it, as to Mr. 
Van Dyck's relation to the judicatories of the Reformed Dutch 
Church, they had applied to that classis itself" 



V 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 028 310 244 0 



